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

IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#601

Post by ahartmetz »

Dagger2 wrote: post #577
ahartmetz wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anecdata is that I'm on 1&1 fiber and I have a public IPv4 address.

German ISPs commonly seem to have an option of their "old" platform (v4 only, no v6) or their "new" one (v6 and CGNATed v4). Maybe you're on their old one? Or maybe they only use it for certain account tiers or somesuch.

I've been with 1&1 for a long time, previously DSL and VDSL, so I could have something grandfathered in - but I doubt it. Especially after the recent transition to fiber. And I am not paying for any special options.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#602

Post by tengwar2 »

kstrauser wrote: post #310
panny wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want IPv6. Why would I? It's like a permanent global cookie. You're uniquely tagged and identifiable on every website you visit. >it's in their best interest to ensure users can't host services without them. They'll just keep blocking port 25. IPv6 won't change anything with regards to self hosting.

> You're uniquely tagged and identifiable on every website you visit. Almost every modern OS enables IPv6 privacy extensions, ie address randomization, by default.

On the last 64 bits, yes. On mobile phones, the first 64 bits may be fixed. This was something I argued against when I was at Vodafone Group, but didn't get any traction. That was a while back, but I'd assume that this is still the case, and that mobile phone addresses can be used for tracking.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#603

Post by zygentoma »

stackghost wrote: post #422
ENGNR wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's frustrating that even brand new Unifi devices that claim to support IPv6 are actually pretty broken when you try to use it. So 10 years from right now even, unless they can software patch it upwards.

Interesting, what's broken for you? I have some unifi gear and it handles v6 no problem.

Not parent but:

Prefix delegation is completely broken for example

I had to switch to OpenWRT on my Ubiquity gear to have something that works (which on the other hand is also easier to configure, so I'm probably going to stay there).

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#604

Post by GoblinSlayer »

Dagger2 wrote: post #587
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

APNIC blog says /48 prefixes are for global routing, i.e. site=country there, not web server. >/48 is the minimum prefix size that will be routed globally in the BGP.

I'm not sure if I'm misreading you, but a /48 would never be an entire country's v6 allocation. If we're talking home networks, you can reliably expect a /48 to a) not be announced in BGP itself, and b) cover one to a few hundred users of one ISP. (The containing /32 or similar will be announced.) A business might structure its network so that one of its /48s corresponds to a country, but in that case the /48 would b…

Reputation unit is /64 block, so if you want to see a 100 people ISP as one reputation unit, it should get a /64 block. But AFAIK today in practice reputation unit is a country.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#605

Post by Hikikomori »

mmbleh wrote: post #474
Hikikomori wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not harder to rate limit a /64 though.

It is because the IPv6 rollout has not been consistent. Some assign /64 per machine, some assign /64 per data center. Some even go the other way and do a /56 per machine. We've had to build up a list of overrides to do some ranges by /64 and others by /128 because of how they allocate addresses. This creates extra burden on server operators and it's not surprising that some just choose not to deal with it.

Why are we pretending that you are checking logs and adding firewall rules manually. Anything worth ddosing is going to have automatic systems that take care of this. If not put an ai agent on it.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#606

Post by GoblinSlayer »

Galanwe wrote: post #384
kstrauser wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don’t understand this. The concepts are nearly identical between the two.

Hum no, to me they are orthogonal. v4 was built around the idea of multiple free standing networks linked by gateways. v6 was built around the idea of a universal network. I dont care about what your LAN adress space look like when I'm in my LAN, because we are not in the same v4 network. I am sovereign in my network. With v6, everyone is effectively in the same network. I have to ask my ISP for a prefix that he will…

If you want static addresses in LAN, you can use link local addresses for that.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#607

Post by alibarber »

yosamino wrote: post #597
alibarber wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fun and has now become an addictive rabbit hole - trying to get packets from one location to the other in the fastest, most direct way (and at hobbyist budget level). Initial writeup based on IPv6: https://abarber.com/Setting-Up-ASN-IPv6-Routing-BIRD-Teltoni... Have been having fun recently with an IPv4 block and Asynchronous routing, working on writing that up right now :)

Thank you for sharing! I really enjoyed reading that and learned a something too.

And thanks for the feedback - I've really been trying to write more so always nice when someone takes the time to read :D

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#608

Post by marginalx »

mrjoe3332 wrote: post #524
marginalx wrote: post #373

Is most of that due to mobile? The real migration challenges are in the server side/consumer home internet space which I'm not sure if there are clear stats around the adoption there. I think IPV6 is a great example of over engineering, trying to do too much in one iteration. In an ideal scenario this could work, but in the context of large scale change with no single responsible party, it usually doesn't work well.

It'd be annoying even in the scenario where it got quickly adopted. Complicated spec, user-unfriendly addresses, unclear defaults.

Precisely the reasons for lack of adoption I would say.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#609

Post by azernik »

mrjoe3332 wrote: post #568
azernik wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv4 addresses are in fact a subspace of IPv6 (that's NAT64). They were not by fiat declared invalid. The actual thing I think you're complaining about - the necessity for NAT64 at all - is unavoidable, because you need a NAT/protocol-translation layer for packets to actually move between the new address space and the old one. SLAAC-by-default is not, in my experience implementing IT automation, an actual barrier for…

NAT64 is a temp bolt on and also not the same thing. If I own 1.1.1.1 in v4, that doesn't mean I own some equivalent of 1.1.1.1 in v6. They had router nat64 and relay nat64, both with dealbreaker problems. You don't exactly need a translation layer. If they just gave me 1.1.1.1:: in v6, anyone migrating v4 to v6 would have the same route to me as before, and other changes like DNS6 could be gradual. Then after v4 is…

> You don't exactly need a translation layer. If they just gave me 1.1.1.1:: in v6, anyone migrating v4 to v6 would have the same route to me as before, and other changes like DNS6 could be gradual.

Think about this on a concrete, packet by packet level - I, from a v6 network, with a 128-bit address that cannot be represented by IPv4, decide to open a connection to 1.1.1.1. 1.1.1.1 doesn't have v6 set up, and so can't read my v6 packet and craft a response packet, because its address is invalid in v4. We need a gateway in the middle that will translate the packets from one format to another and perform the NAT function from one address space to another. This is an irreducible complexity.

> a lot of people don't even want public v6 addrs for hosts, they just want NAT/DHCP.

People don't care about whether their address is public or not, they want connectivity. SLAAC gives that to them; it is you that are insisting on adding complexity for the sake of having a non-routable address. As a user, I enable IPv6 on my router and go on my merry way; as an ISP, I assign my customer's router a /60 or /56 via DHCPv6 instead of a /24 and go on my merry way. Running an IPv6 address allocation system is a an easy, solved problem and has been for decades.

The hard problem is dual-stacking, and there is no way around that.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#610

Post by teddyh »

cyberax wrote: post #459
teddyh wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean. No, that’s not the IPv4 design. That’s an incredibly ugly hack to cope with IPv4 address shortage. It was never meant to work this way. IPv6 fixes this to again work like the original, simpler design, without ”local” addresses or NAT. > In IPv6 each host has multiple global address…

Hyrum's law. That's how IPv4 is being used in practice. > You can quite easily give each host one, and only one, static IPv6 address, just like with old-style IPv4. You literally CAN NOT. On Android there's no way to put in a static IPv6 or even use stateful DHCPv6.

> You literally CAN NOT. On Android there's no way to put in a static IPv6 or even use stateful DHCPv6.

Blame the closed and proprietary Android platform for that; not IPv6.

Post reply on HN