Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 198 posts

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#51

Post by doubled112 »

everdrive wrote: post #33
bornfreddy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having a public address doesn't worry me. At home I have a firewall at the edge. It is set to block everything incoming. Concern is privacy, not security. Publicly addressable machine is a bit worse for security (IoT anyone?), but it is a lot worse for privacy.

I'm not confused about the NAT / firewall distinction, but it might be nice if my ISP didn't have a constant, precise idea of exactly how many connected devices I owned. Can that be _inferred_ with IPv4? Yes, but it's fuzzier.

Is this solved by the device having between 1 and X randomly generated IPv6 addresses?

Some of my devices have 1, some 2, and some even more. Takes some precision out, at least.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#52

Post by everdrive »

Sanzig wrote: post #37
everdrive wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- I don't want my interfaces to have multiple IP addresses - I don't want my devices to have public, discoverable IPs - I like NAT and it works fine - I don't want to use dynamic DNS just so I have set up a single home server without my ISP rotating my /64 for no reason (and no SLAAC is not an answer because I don't want multiple addresses per interface) - I don't need an entire /48 for my home network IPv6 won't hel…

Why don't you want every device to have a public IP? There seems to be a perception that this is somehow insecure, but the default configuration of any router is to firewall everything. And one small bonus of the huge size of a /64 is that port scanning is not feasible, unlike in the old days when you could trivially scan a whole IPv4 /24 of a company that forgot to configure their firewall. NAT may work fine for you…

> hollowing can crash the target process if the payload isn't carefully matched to the host process architecture.

So here's the thing. My ISP does _not_ rotate my IPv4 address, but _does_ rotate IPv6. Why? I'll never know.

Anyhow. I'm not confused about NAT vs. firewalling. No one who dislikes IPv6 is confused by this.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#53

Post by bladeee »

iamnothere wrote: post #42

This may be a “joke”, but it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context. Want to use IPv6? Fine. But don’t try to remove v4 support from people who have built stable networks around it. You won’t be able to force the world to switch to IPv6 with tricks like this, any more than you can force old industrial machines to stop using ancient 486es as controllers. There is a lot of o…

What? Freedom to opt in or out is good either way.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#54

Post by jrm4 »

Sanzig wrote: post #37
everdrive wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- I don't want my interfaces to have multiple IP addresses - I don't want my devices to have public, discoverable IPs - I like NAT and it works fine - I don't want to use dynamic DNS just so I have set up a single home server without my ISP rotating my /64 for no reason (and no SLAAC is not an answer because I don't want multiple addresses per interface) - I don't need an entire /48 for my home network IPv6 won't hel…

Why don't you want every device to have a public IP? There seems to be a perception that this is somehow insecure, but the default configuration of any router is to firewall everything. And one small bonus of the huge size of a /64 is that port scanning is not feasible, unlike in the old days when you could trivially scan a whole IPv4 /24 of a company that forgot to configure their firewall. NAT may work fine for you…

[flagged]

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#55

Post by iamnothere »

embedding-shape wrote: post #45
iamnothere wrote: post #42

This may be a “joke”, but it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context. Want to use IPv6? Fine. But don’t try to remove v4 support from people who have built stable networks around it. You won’t be able to force the world to switch to IPv6 with tricks like this, any more than you can force old industrial machines to stop using ancient 486es as controllers. There is a lot of o…

> it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context How does "allow building Linux to be IPv6-only" somehow "deny others their freedom" exactly? I'm willing to wager most distributions will still be dual v4+v6, but if they aren't, isn't that something for you to bring up with your distribution rather than that the kernel just allows something?

Coupling this patch with language about “legacy IP”, along with the follow up comments from the person who submitted the patch, it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4. I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions.

I have no problem with allowing optional IPv4 or IPv6 only builds as long as both are kept well-maintained.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#56

Post by knorker »

I would like this option, to make it easier to run a CI environment truly IPv6-only. As in socket() to create a v4 socket should fail.

seccomp could only do this partially, in that there are other avenues (e.g. io_uring), and I want it to be the case throughout the boot process.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#57

Post by embedding-shape »

iamnothere wrote: post #55
embedding-shape wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context How does "allow building Linux to be IPv6-only" somehow "deny others their freedom" exactly? I'm willing to wager most distributions will still be dual v4+v6, but if they aren't, isn't that something for you to bring up with your distribution rather than that the kernel just allows something?

Coupling this patch with language about “legacy IP”, along with the follow up comments from the person who submitted the patch, it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4. I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions. I have no problem with allowing optional IPv4 or IPv6 only builds as long as both are kept well-maintained.

> it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4

But so what? It still doesn't remove v4, in any shape or form, and if that was proposed to the kernel, I'm again fairly confident it'd be rejected.

> I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions

Ah, yeah that might be. I just saw your comment first, with no context of what you were actually answering, so it kind of looks like you're replying "to the submission", which really isn't denying any freedoms, I guess I was confused about that, my bad. Still, wouldn't it be better to answer directly to those comments, rather than "replying" to an argument/debate that is actually happening elsewhere?

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#58

Post by embedding-shape »

miyuru wrote: post #41
jeroenhd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odido is the cheapest ISP for a reason. They refuse to implement anything that isn't strictly required. Perhaps implementing an Odido tax might actually make Odido care enough to throw the switch on IPv6. They bought 2a02:4240::/32, they just refuse to make use of it.

they do use it in their speedtest server. curl -v https://speedtest.ams.t-mobile.nl.prod.hosts.ooklaserver.net:8080 ... * Connected to speedtest.ams.t-mobile.nl.prod.hosts.ooklaserver.net (2a02:4240::e) port 8080

Probably a requirement from Ookla, so again "They refuse to implement anything that isn't strictly required".

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#60

Post by iamnothere »

embedding-shape wrote: post #57
iamnothere wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coupling this patch with language about “legacy IP”, along with the follow up comments from the person who submitted the patch, it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4. I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions. I have no problem with allowing optional IPv4 or IPv6 only builds as long as both are kept well-maintained.

> it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4 But so what? It still doesn't remove v4, in any shape or form, and if that was proposed to the kernel, I'm again fairly confident it'd be rejected. > I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions Ah, yeah that might be. I just saw your comment first, with no context of what you were actually answering, so it kind of looks…

Somehow IPv4 versus IPv6 has become one of those noxious political-technical debates like Android versus Apple or GPL versus BSD/MIT, in which both sides are dug in and think that the other side must be destroyed.

The reason that I don’t like seeing patches like this, even as a “joke”, is that there are real people who would like to see IPv4 removed (possibly by government intervention) in order to achieve their dream of an IPv6 only internet. The whole idea is preposterous, but here we are. It’s about as realistic as banning cars but that doesn’t stop the endless flame wars about it.

Someone has to step in to point out that v4 and v6 were designed to coexist, this is fine, please don’t remove common standards for your personal preferences.

Post reply on HN