I see this just as repetition of the 32 bit vs 64 bit operating systems. Why would anyone want to use 64 bit operating system? Instructions are longer, it requires more cache, RAM, disk space and so on, making performance worse. Nobody actually wants 64 bit systems. Endless problems with drivers, programs, etc.
Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
541–550 of 649 posts
Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
#542All ipv6 shortcomings discussion aside; What I think is the more vital problem to focus on is that the governments clearly don't want us mere mortals to expose our own servers running on our own hardware to the outside world (most often justifying that with "it's for your own security" mantra, for we're all deemed too dumb to figure that out for ourselves). ISP-imposed ipv4 double NAT (imposed on ISPs by the governme…
I've downvoted you for being combative, wide-sweepingly conspiratorial, off-topic, and thinking everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you.
Count yourself downvoted for disguising your own combativeness as didactic neutrality, not being pinpoint-factual and on-topic and for actually being out to get me with your downvote for disagreeing with people who you think were right.
Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those ISPs are broken and not following the RFCs or RIR guidelines. There's nothing stopping you from using NAT with IPv6, people just don't do it because the only benefit of NAT is conserving limited address space. NAT on IPv6 just brings all downsides and no benefit because you (should) have no shortage of address space. In any case v6 with nat is no worse than legacy ip with nat, its just stupid because they're fo…
> the only benefit of NAT is conserving limited address space. It's also a privacy feature which ensures I am able to hide the number of unique devices in my network.
hide might be generous as fingerprinting devices based on their characteristics is pretty well understood nowadays.
Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
But IPv4+ is incompatible, so it requires to maintain two network stacks until reasonably everything has moved over to it. You need to duplicate the configuration for DNS, routing, firewalls etc., exactly as for dual stack IPv6. I don't really see a difference.
Imagine I own a company and I already have a bunch of IP4. I upgrade my network equipment to IP4+, and then keep all my routing and firewall configs. Everything just works the same as before. Now I want to access IP4+, so I add a route entry for all the IPs above 255.255.255.255. In fact, if that entry is just "send everything to my upstream" it might already work! Now I want to add some new resources but I'm out of…
This comes up every few years. I remember there was even a link about it, but I can't remember what to search for :)
Naive approaches all assume that there is some incremental step, and IETF was just too idealistic to go with a completely new second system. But as others mentioned, it's a coordination problem. Since IPv4 does not have any signaling mechanism for upgrade, or for somehow encapsulating variable/longer length addresses ... adding that is the minimal change size.
Of course if your argument is that the RFCs and the whole v6 world is just a big unfriendly abstract wall of text, not "accidental IT guy" friendly, then of course you are right. But that can be remediated by writing better docs, providing better UX via better tools. (All the usual linux tools are horribly user hostile, and then they have an additional stinking pile of v6 tools, or the occasional -6 parameter.... but that's not exactly the IETF's fault.)
Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
#545[dead]
Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
> your host has a "link-local" address. Could there be a connection here? Maybe. Or maybe not. It could apply only to hosts connected via the same switch? Or same AP? That's how i read link-local. It's obvious to you because you already know. > see your complaints about complexity as nothing but the whining of a child So point me to an overview of ipv6, enough to manually configure a small network, that is clear and…
Yes link-local is only local to the link (same broadcast domain). But most home networks are bridged on layer 2 anyway. IPv6 allows for a design where you don't have everything on the same broadcast domain but actually use subnets for e.g. the WiFi network. But since you still want to retain IPv4 compatibility, this is usually not an option in home networks. > So point me to an overview of ipv6, enough to manually co…
> Just enable router advertisements on your router
Thats not “manually”. Thats clicking in the routers UI. My idea of manually is roll your own Linux.
Worked just fine for ipv4, looks like a full time job for 6.
Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You know the 3rd and 7th largest networks on the internet still can't reach each other over IPv6 Who is responsible? Which networks are those?
Cogent and Hurricane Electric, the upstream providers of 31% and 17% of networks on the internet respectfully. The reason as an end user you can access both sides of the spit is because network engineers for end user/eyeball networks will buy transit from both.
I’m sorry but how is cogents shitty business model somehow the fault of ipv6? Peering disputes happen on ipv4 as well
Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
#548IPv6 has been one of the biggest failures in the last couple of decades. And I don't mean adoption, I mean the standard itself. If IPv6 were IPv4 with more octets, then we would all have been using it for like a decade. Yes, I understand it would still require some breaking changes, but it would have been a million times easier to upgrade, as it would be a kind of superset of IPv4 (1.2.3.4 can be referred as 0.0.0.0.…
You're solving the wrong problem.
IPv4 is a pain in the ass, but never in 20 years have I thought to myself "gee, I really wish I had more IP addresses available".
I'm not Amazon and I will never run out of 192.168.0.0/16.
Focus on the real use-cases, please.
Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
#549It's been a quarter of a century since IPv6 launch. There's some really good lessons learned here. IPv6 requires everyone, everywhere, needs to change their configuration to add IPv6 addresses and network connectivity to every node/endpoint. The madness of course is that all the underlying infrastructure software (routers, OS, standard libraries) all support IPv6. It would seem, at a large enough scale, that software…
I got a brand new router recently, IPv6 was still disabled by default! I honestly can't understand the reasoning, I don't even buy the internet visibility argument because the default incoming connection rules for IPv6 after I enabled it were deny-all. We really have a long way to go still in getting equipment everywhere enabled on it.
IPv6 is a security liability and provides no benefit to the user.
Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
#550I have to say I’m super disappointed in the ignorance and negativity in the comments on this thread. Ignorance of both the difficulties inherent in upgrading a fixed size wire protocol designed for a research network fifty years ago, and the widespread adoption of ipv6 for real customer deployments. Heck most of you are probably using ipv6 through your mobile carrier and don’t even know it!
You're essentially blaming the victim. The ISPs still haven't adopted it after 25 years. ISPs are a massive monopoly in the USA. IPV6 can't be adopted by software until a sufficient number of the backbone works. I've heard that "the backbone is all working for ipv6". Um, is comcast? Wasn't last time I had comcast. If the ISP monopolies aren't 100% ipv6 (and you see lots of comments here that ipv6 support in ISPs is s…
The government has a poor track record of pushing a technology in this space. They’ve been mandating ipv6 in the dod for - gosh at least since 2008 or so.
Oh, and you have the government to thank for the useless posix subsystem for windows back in the 90s (remember that?) as a way to force software “interoperability” between Unix and windows. Companies vying for federal contracts will look at the poorly defined requirements and find a way to just barely meet the letter but not the spirit.