Earlier quoted context omitted.
"seamless", appearing 5 times. Everything is "seamless" with ChatGPT. IPv6 is seamless, etc...
Only if one delves.
I honed my skills at recognizing ChatGPT, not you ?
Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
61–70 of 74 posts
Re: Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
#62Every post about IPv6 and its failure is about friction. Friction for the inevitable march towards adoption. As usual with English, the British master it, and they have a term for bureaucratic friction: "The Blob"
The Blob is a political insult towards the civil service by senior Tory leaders, who blamed them for resisting their policies for political reasons.
It does not refer to bureaucratic friction in general, and is not a term in widespread use by the British.
Re: Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> address space extension in a way that doesn't break backwards compatibility. i didn't say it wouldn't break backward compatibility - you're moving the goal posts. what i said was "a superset of IP with a different packet format and wider fields" > arm-chair protocol engineers don't be condescending. i've likely been designing protocols for longer than you think. > Remember, you need to be specific how you would add…
>if all you had to do to deal with IPv6 was bigger addresses and a slightly different wire format, This again. The biggest barrier to IPv6 adoption has always been a different wire format, it doesn't matter the degree of difference.
I'm just a casual homelab guy, but all my hardware now supports IPv6 but I'm not really using it precisely because it is just so different from IPv4.
How you assign addresses is completely different. How you configure your firewall as a result is completely different. In fact software support for the latter was one of the things I struggled with for years before having to change router software from pfSense to OpenWRT. Last I checked pfSense still didn't have full support.
They changed the way you write the addresses, using the port separator as group separator as well, leading to needing special software support for parsing IPv6 addresses. I know because I had to fix this in a few projects where we bothered to add IPv6 support, and that was the biggest PITA by far when adding IPv6 support, the rest was trivial.
Out of all the trouble I've had with IPv6, the wire format was the least problematic by far. All the wire format did was cause it to take some time to get IPv6 capable hardware.
But I've had that hardware for decades at this point. The thing keeping IPv6 back is all the other things they changed.
Re: Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
#64Quasi related; how does one find out if your ISP is using CGNAT? I'm rather lucky in that my ISP recently started offering IPv6 (and somehow my workstation appears to be using it by as the default), but none of the other PC's on my network do. (Win11 change perhaps?)
Aside from comparing assigned public IP addresses regularly, I think we (ipinfo) probably have this data internally, or at least we can figure it out. We are pinging and running traceroutes on every IP out there to figure out IP geolocation, so I think we should be able to tag ASNs/ISPs that use CGNAT. So, on CGNAT connections the RTT on the same IP address will be different from time to time and traceroute paths and times will be different as well.
But I'm not sure who will and how they will find this information useful. If anyone can think of a reason why CGNAT detection can be useful generally, I can pitch this to the engineers.
Re: Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
So here is an exercise: go look at the structure of an IPv4 packet. It’s not complicated. Can you see where you can cram 32 additional bits? Or even 24? Because if there isn’t a place for them then you cannot possibly extend the IPv4 address space without breaking backwards compatibility. Anyone can do this exercise, and anyone who has an opinion should do this exercise. Spoiler: you will come to the conclusion that…
what i said was "a superset of IP with a different packet format and wider fields" well, yes obviously you need more bits. what you don't need is all the other changes. > I really hope you stop respond in to people with nonsense before you look at the packet structure yourself. don't be condescending.
Again, look at the IP header format and see for yourself that there is no place to create wider fields. This is what everyone here has been trying to tell you in a myriad ways and you are not hearing this. There is no possible way to do what you are proposing. What you are saying is the definition of nonsense because there is no sense in it. You are arguing that an 18 wheeler should be able to fit inside the trunk of a car and getting upset when people tell you that it doesn’t fit.
Re: Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's nothing wrong with having RFC1918 addresses and globally-routable IPv6 addresses assigned to your VPC. It's a pretty backwards way to build your network. You pay all the costs and gain none of the benefits.
I'm afraid I don't follow. The way to express the design in a pure-IPv6 world would be that you use ULA addresses to reach the AWS services that you use and globally-routable addresses to reach the outside world. Given that the cost that we're avoiding paying with the mechanism I described in my previous post is the ongoing cost for globally-routable IPv4 addresses, I'm not sure what cost you're talking about paying.…
I meant the network admin costs, if you're having to run dual stack, and especially if you're getting a network setup where you can't fearlessly combine/add routes between any two subnets that you have. To my mind the key benefit of using IPv6, the thing that makes it worth doing at all, is to stop having to worry about address assignment and address collisions and local addresses; obviously you do still probably want to talk to v4-only outside resources, but if you can't get away from having to give all your hosts individual v4 addresses and keep track of them then frankly you might as well just stay v4-only (except at the load balancer or what have you - which might be what you meant, but it sounded like you were talking about using a mix of v4 and v6 within the VPC).
Re: Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
>if all you had to do to deal with IPv6 was bigger addresses and a slightly different wire format, This again. The biggest barrier to IPv6 adoption has always been a different wire format, it doesn't matter the degree of difference.
I'm just a casual homelab guy, but all my hardware now supports IPv6 but I'm not really using it precisely because it is just so different from IPv4. How you assign addresses is completely different. How you configure your firewall as a result is completely different. In fact software support for the latter was one of the things I struggled with for years before having to change router software from pfSense to OpenWR…
> They changed the way you write the addresses, using the port separator as group separator as well, leading to needing special software support for parsing IPv6 addresses. I know because I had to fix this in a few projects where we bothered to add IPv6 support, and that was the biggest PITA by far when adding IPv6 support, the rest was trivial.
OMFG!
The hardest part of supporting IPv6 was fixing your address parsing? THAT!?
Here's my frustration. Everyone who doesn't understand the why of IPv6 always complains that the address format is such a huge problem and that is why the IPv6 deployment is so slow and hard. It's basically a shibboleth for poor understanding.
The reason why this isn't a good take is that IP address parsing is a standard function of every standard library on the planet. You dump in a string and they all figure it out, and spit back an object with everything you need. The reason you had so much trouble with supporting it is that you weren't using the platform libraries. You hacked together some junk, probably a few broken regex's and string concatenation. Your homebrew IP library was broken and I guarantee you didn't handle all the IPv4 parsing rules correctly.
Re: Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
#68Quasi related; how does one find out if your ISP is using CGNAT? I'm rather lucky in that my ISP recently started offering IPv6 (and somehow my workstation appears to be using it by as the default), but none of the other PC's on my network do. (Win11 change perhaps?)
Check the IPv4 address on your WAN. If it's in the 100.64.0.0/10 range [0], you're on CG-NAT.
Furthermore, run
curl ipv4.icanhazip.com
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT#Shared_addre...
Re: Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know of any ISP that will give you a public ipv4 address for free. More interesting is windows 11 auto configuring ipv6. Does you pc have a public ipv6 address starting with 2:: or fe80:: link local address? Quick ipv6 crash course. Instead of DHCPv4 (there is DHCPv6 but it's optional) being required for address configuations, ipv6 uses somting called Stateless address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC). Normaly your…
>I don't know of any ISP that will give you a public ipv4 address for free. There probably isn't an ISP that gives out *static* public IPv4 addresses for free, but any ISP that supports IPv4 without CGNAT will give out public IPv4 addresses by definition. The two I've used in the US (Frontier, now Ziply) certainly do.
Aquiss [0] in the UK gives static public IPv4 and static /56 IPv6 PD included in the regular plan price.
Re: Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just a casual homelab guy, but all my hardware now supports IPv6 but I'm not really using it precisely because it is just so different from IPv4. How you assign addresses is completely different. How you configure your firewall as a result is completely different. In fact software support for the latter was one of the things I struggled with for years before having to change router software from pfSense to OpenWR…
> They changed the way you write the addresses, using the port separator as group separator as well, leading to needing special software support for parsing IPv6 addresses. I know because I had to fix this in a few projects where we bothered to add IPv6 support, and that was the biggest PITA by far when adding IPv6 support, the rest was trivial. OMFG! The hardest part of supporting IPv6 was fixing your address parsin…
> The hardest part of supporting IPv6 was fixing your address parsing?
That was actually a non-trivial part of implementing IPv6. Sure RFC 2732 had come out a few years earlier, but we weren't parsing URLs so it was not clear if it applied to our use-case.
All the rest that was required for us to support IPv6 was quite trivial. This was the only thing we had to spend time on.
> The reason why this isn't a good take is that IP address parsing is a standard function of every standard library on the planet.
Ok, I stand to be corrected, after all none of us were network programming experts.
How do you parse a IPv6 address, including the port number if present, using Boost 1.35 or C++03 STL? Note should run on Windows XP, as well as Linux and OSX of similar era. Does your solution require the format specified in RFC 2732?
Anyway my point still stands. There main friction to adopting IPv6 is not the wire format, it's everything else they changed.