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

What drives IPv6 deployment?

potaroo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#71

Post by pixl97 »

spacenick88 wrote: post #27
hjfa0j wrote: post #10

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm happy with CG-NAT because of the security and privacy benefits. This thing of having a per-device IP address looks like the wet dream of marketers and those newspapers that won't let you look at more than X articles a month. No thanks.

I don't think IPs were ever a viable tracking tool besides detecting the country. NAT has been the default for most home networks and as a marketer you really don't want to confuse a mid-forties dad with their 14 year old daughter. So you've always had very very different marketing profiles share an IP. Besides that browser profiles are just soo much more exact.

>I don't think IPs were ever a viable tracking tool besides detecting the country.

That depends on the ISP.

Many cable ISPs assign DHCP blocks to nodes that are defined by geographical areas. These can then be correlated with cellphone apps on wireless connections that also return GPS data to the collector. After a few thousand samples you get a really good picture of IP blocks that move and ones that are somewhat static.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#72

Post by Uh7seidu »

phyzome wrote: post #70
erikb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it make you sad and angry? It sounds quite reasonable to me. I'm especially happy that we went for human readable names rather than wierd letter/number combinations. Also nobody seems to know when to use these [] brackets around the addresses, and they are even hard to type for people who don't use the US keyboard layout. Last but not least NAT is not just a IP-range splitter but also a security feature. I l…

Perhaps you don't remember the days when every computer on the internet was an equal peer. To be honest, I don't quite remember it either; I only caught the very tail end. But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers, and the internet is a sort-of-bipartite graph with two classes of citizens…

Even multiplayer games were played by directly connecting to game servers that could be operated by anyone, no company-hosted clouds that will shut down after a few years.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#73

Post by tenebrisalietum »

tuyiown wrote: post #36

> These days it's a client server network. Clients do not need persistent network-wide identity, and only need addresses as and when they communicate with servers. Servers do not need persistent identity either these days, as the identity of a server is a name-based distinguisher rather than an address-based identifier. This is not the internet I've been sold in my youth, and this statement makes me sad and angry.

> and this statement makes me sad and angry

Your MAC and/or IP address should not identify you, and never should have been used as an identifier. It's the identity of a communication endpoint.

If the OSI model is about making the core of the network stupid and fast, which has proven benefits of scalability and/or extensibility, then identity/authentication is not the network layer's job and never was.

If a protocol assumes all hosts on a subnet are trustworthy (ARP/DHCP for example), it's an upper-level protocol design failure, not really having to do with transport (TCP/UDP)/network (IP) layers.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#74

Post by PugCPC »

The following may sound like out-of-the-blue. To expedite the discussion, however, allow me to state that it has been in reviews at the highest levels of responsible organizations without receiving a shot yet. So, please enjoy the information.

The IPv4 address shortage issues have been resolved. We came upon a scheme that can expand each public IPv4 address by 256M (Million) fold without affecting the current Internet. A proposal called EzIP (phonetic for Easy IPv4) has been submitted to IETF:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-add...

Essentially, among other benefits, EzIP can establish a sub-Internet capable of serving an area with up to 256M IoTs from just one IPv4 address. This is bigger than the largest city (Tokyo metro) and 75% of the countries. This can realize the CIR (Country-based Internet Registry) model proposed by ITU a few years ago stealthily even without setting up a CIR organization. If a government is not interested in this resources, private enterprises can make use of it to provide "local" Internet service in parallel to the current "global" Internet services, very much like the Independent telephone companies in the PSTN industry.

The current Internet then becomes the backbone / infrastructure / skeleton for interconnecting these sub-Internets, yet only for carrying inter sub-Internet traffic, very similar as the electric grid supporting islands of renewable energy generated by individual homes and businesses. Consequently, there will be a lot of spare IPv4 addresses for quite sometime to come.

Then, much of the efforts in deploying IPv6 are no longer needed.

Thoughts and comments will be much appreciated.

Abe (2018-09-07 10:49)

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#75

Post by kiallmacinnes »

krupan wrote: post #40
kiallmacinnes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT, including CG-NAT really provides no security benefits. Too many comments, blogs, etc, have been written on this topic for me to reiterate the specifics here. NAT, including CG-NAT, provides near zero privacy benefits. Nobody is tracking by IP address - there are far, far, far, more accurate ways, again, I won't reiterate all the ways this happens, Google it (or is the TLS session resumption one still on the fron…

I agree with the statement that NAT provides no privacy benefits, but there are security benefits to NAT. As Robert Graham says, "NAT is a firewall. It's the most common firewall. It's the best firewall." https://blog.erratasec.com/2017/01/nat-is-firewall.html

That article is, well, wrong.

If all you rely on is NAT, and you turn the firewall on your router off, it is possible for outside attackers to send unexpected packets to through the NAT device and right to your endpoints.

The targets are limited to the entries contained within the NAT translation tables, but that's still a pretty leaky "firewall".

NAT is just not a firewall, all it does is translate addresses, or in the case of PAT, Ports+Addresses. It does not filter the packets it receives, it just translates them.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#76

Post by toast0 »

pas wrote: post #64
acd10j wrote: post #35

I for one find clean slate tech approach adopted by Reliance Jio in India very inspiring. IPv6 support from start which saves it tons of money for buying IPv4 addresses , similar to their decision to adopt native 4G LTE Volte from start that helps it save tons of bandwidth on voice compared to Legacy 2G , 3G voice options.

So they run v6, that's great, but they need to run 464XLAT (or something like that) too, and that probably isn't cheap either. (Though they'd probably pay a lot for v4 CGNAT too.)

They run a transition layer, and they likely need to run that almost forever; but chances are they won't need to continue to grow that layer , as they continually apply pressure to service providers to offer services via IPv6. Either explicitly as part of business deals, implicitly through direct IPv6 working better than IPv4 Nat, or a mix through weird NAT policies like when they were dropping 'idle' tcp connections after about 10 seconds for a couple weeks.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#77

Post by lostapathy »

drbawb wrote: post #69
lostapathy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spectrum doesnt’t really support ipv6 either. I have turned it on at times, run for weeks without issue, and then something breaks. When i pushed support, they always tell me its not really supported.

I think their support is a bit divorced from whatever the engineering reality is. I asked their support / sales staff about IPv6 and they said it was "only available w/ their business class service." I ended up buying my own modem and IPv6 has worked flawlessly ever since. The Motorola SB6580 they provided nominally supported IPv6, but they hadn't updated the firmware on it in years. Makes me wonder what exactly I wa…

I'm in a converted TimeWarner territory. I got marketing announcements several years ago that ipv6 was supported, and first started trying then. I usually try once or twice a year to get it going again, and it never works for more than a few weeks before I turn it off again out of frustration.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#78

Post by toast0 »

Uh7seidu wrote: post #52
krupan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the statement that NAT provides no privacy benefits, but there are security benefits to NAT. As Robert Graham says, "NAT is a firewall. It's the most common firewall. It's the best firewall." https://blog.erratasec.com/2017/01/nat-is-firewall.html

Any IPv6-capable CPE I have seen also has an IPv6 firewall that blocks incoming connections without the downsides of NATs.

Most of the IPv6 CPE I've used also has the 'feature' where it's almost impossible to allow incoming connections on IPv6 if you want to :(

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#79

Post by keeperofdakeys »

FrozenVoid wrote: post #20

It looks like only mobile networks are embracing the change to handles the volume of mobile devices. The evolution of WiFi/phone hardware is quite fast, so they're not stopped by anything legacy, no ipv4 only devices and no one needs static ip on mobile.

It does have an interesting effect though. Apple now have a mandate that apps must work in IPv6 only mode, so they need to be developed and tested for it. This in turn means they need an IPv6 network to test it on, giving enterprise a reason to at least enable it (even if they haven't transitioned any internal services).

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#80

Post by Uh7seidu »

toast0 wrote: post #78
Uh7seidu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any IPv6-capable CPE I have seen also has an IPv6 firewall that blocks incoming connections without the downsides of NATs.

Most of the IPv6 CPE I've used also has the 'feature' where it's almost impossible to allow incoming connections on IPv6 if you want to :(

Newer devices might support the Port Control Protocol, so applications can ask for the port to be forwarded on ipv4 and allowed in the firewall for ipv6
Post reply on HN