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

Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

pc.nanog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#71

Post by neojima »

gmuslera wrote: post #64
signa11 wrote: post #4

geoff-huston from apnic, has this set : https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/9-2018-05-17-ipv6-reas... describing world-wide ipv6 deployment, and the conclusion there seems to be that v6 deployment is actually slowing down, and the conclusion seems to be that no one knows why...

The low hanging fruits are all taken, the higher ones are harder to reach. But what makes an ISP/country harder to reach is not just a couple of variables.

I'd half agree with this; for those who are actively working on this, yes, the low-hanging fruit are all done, but there's still plenty of low-hanging fruit in organizations where no one's bothered to pick them.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#72

Post by ataturk »

okket wrote: post #35
phicoh wrote: post #11

It is weird to call this 'IPv6 Only'. Connectivity to the IPv4 internet is still provided. It is just that to talk IPv4 you have to go through a couple of complex translation steps.

It is IPv6 only with a fallback connection to the legacy IPv4 protocol with little to no chance of a reverse connection. Sadly, too much content is still stuck in this rapidly ageing world. Bandaid after bandaid won't help in the long term. Do we really want a one way connection world? If not, adapt IPv6. By default IPv6 CPE gear blocks incoming connections, which is good. Firewall rules can be changed, if needed. Yo…

I started learning about IPv6 in 1994! I mean, it was the fast-coming new thing back then. I was encouraged by one professor to deep dive into it since my career would definitely require knowledge of this new protocol. It's been 24 years now, maybe after 25 years it will take off for real.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#73

Post by pixl97 »

dEnigma wrote: post #53
icebraining wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they that unlikely? My IPv4 is stable for months/years, despite being "dynamic". I don't even run a dynamic DNS client, since it's so rare that it actually changes.

It really depends on the ISP. Back when we were still using A1 (what used to be the Austrian telecom basically), we would receive a new IP address every time we reconnected. Now after switching to Liwest (a very local provider, only serves this city and some small towns around it) our IP is for all intents and purposes static, even though it wasn't advertised as such.

>we would receive a new IP address every time we reconnected.

Some devices like cable modems rarely 'reconnect'. As long as your router and cable modem stay powered you can keep your IP for months.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#74

Post by neojima »

dstick wrote: post #29

I've been following the IPv6 rollout with interest for the last few years from outside the networking / RIR / LIR / ISP community and I have a question if anyone could provide some insights: ARIN is already out of IPv4, RIPE just finished their last /8 and are now going through the remaining available pile - what happens when they're all gone? Won't the world sort of be forced to migrate?

- APNIC ran out in 2011, but has a new-LIR pool remaining

- RIPE ran out in 2012, but has a new-LIR pool remaining (part of which is that /8 you mentioned)

- LACNIC ran out in 2014, but has a new-LIR pool remaining

- ARIN ran out in 2015, and does not have a new-LIR pool

- AFRINIC is the only RIR with a general-use pool available

As akvadrako says, there's a secondary market, except the current pricing is around 16+USD/IP, with the semi-obvious minimum of a /24 (so, 4000+USD). Given that (in ARIN region) that /24 would have cost you 250USD up-front, it's a marked increase.

(Actual current numbers, FWIW: https://www.ipv4auctions.com/customer/account/previous/ )

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#75

Post by detaro »

singularity2001 wrote: post #12

Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime? While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.

I don't hink it's much more unlikely. And in the same vein, some ISPs change your IPv6 prefix regularly. It really depends on the ISP, their technology and their policies.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#76

Post by tzahola »

StefanWallin wrote: post #6

> "At WWDC 2015 Apple announced the transition to IPv6-only network services in iOS 9. Starting June 1, 2016 all apps submitted to the App Store must support IPv6-only networking." In effect this is not true, as a developer without the time to fully implement IPv6-only networking I've been slapped with this rule in the app store review guidelines for non-complying apps numerous times. Just submit a new review and you…

What prevents you from supporting IPv6-only networking? HTTP libraries support it out of the box. If you use sockets, just update them to use PF_INET6 and it'll be backward-compatible with IPv4 through IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#77

Post by dEnigma »

pixl97 wrote: post #73
dEnigma wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on the ISP. Back when we were still using A1 (what used to be the Austrian telecom basically), we would receive a new IP address every time we reconnected. Now after switching to Liwest (a very local provider, only serves this city and some small towns around it) our IP is for all intents and purposes static, even though it wasn't advertised as such.

>we would receive a new IP address every time we reconnected. Some devices like cable modems rarely 'reconnect'. As long as your router and cable modem stay powered you can keep your IP for months.

We used to turn them off as soon as we stopped using the internet (this was also before any of us had a smartphone). I think the ISP also cut the connection every 24 hours and changed the IP to prevent people from having a static IP "for free".

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#78

Post by pixl97 »

Eech0Shu wrote: post #41
okket wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is IPv6 only with a fallback connection to the legacy IPv4 protocol with little to no chance of a reverse connection. Sadly, too much content is still stuck in this rapidly ageing world. Bandaid after bandaid won't help in the long term. Do we really want a one way connection world? If not, adapt IPv6. By default IPv6 CPE gear blocks incoming connections, which is good. Firewall rules can be changed, if needed. Yo…

There's some RFC suggesting that CGNATs handle PCP requests from the CPE thus allowing incoming connections. But sadly that's not implemented everywhere.

Yo dawg, I hear you like NAT, so I'm going to put NAT in your NAT.

While IPv6 may suck, it really is time to take IPv4 out and shoot it in the head.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#79

Post by neojima »

devereaux wrote: post #5

On my home network, all my device have IPv6. Unfortunately, it not native IPv6: the AT&T LTE device I use for my home internet doesn't support IPv6. (Why LTE? It's a long story- I frequently travel, and I take my connection with me. Comcast doesn't make much sense. LTE latency and bandwidth are good enough) Anyway, whenever I get a server, I make sure IPv6 is supported. No IPv6, no business from me -- even for a VPS.…

Just to warn you, even on T-Mobile, not all hotspot devices support IPv6 (either by default or at all).

I forget if inbound connections work, though.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#80

Post by ancarda »

neojima wrote: post #65
ajdlinux wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's IPv6 statistics ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-... ) show that the US is ahead of literally every other country in the world, so I think it's fair to say US ISPs aren't doing too badly.

As mentioned/hinted by ancarda: a) You missed Belgium. (Common oversight, due to the size on the map.) b) Google's stats have something of a US-centric bias; https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ is a little less biased (which also shows Belgium and India in the lead).

Thanks for that link, it's good to see more measurements.

Would you elaborate a bit on APNIC's data having less bias than Google? As far as I know, Google is quite popular worldwide, with the exception of China, so measurements taken on Google servers should give decent accuracy for every country.

Do you know how APNIC get their data? I'm happy to switch over to it if it's more representative and accurate.

Post reply on HN