Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

news.ycombinator.com

71–80 of 396 posts

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was briefly turned on years ago and then turned off. I guess it broke the website for those behind corporate MITM boxes.

There's a lot of websites out there that does TLS 1.3. Surely not an issue for MITM boxes? Otherwise they wouldn't be able to access much...

Maybe that wasn't true years ago?

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#72
post #5
post #2

[flagged]

The next few months may be hard for you. AWS will start charging for ipv4 on February 1st, so it’s likely that either a mass migration is coming or prices for many services will increase accordingly to pass that cost along to customers.

AWS doesn't have good enough IPv6 support for an exodus from IPv4. ALB does not support IPv6-only. Cloudfront only supports IPv4 origins. API Gateway only supports IPv4.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#73
post #68
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Published guidance says they're meant to give out at least a /56. I don't know that making autoallocation work on smaller subnets would help with this problem - ISPs that currently give out the smallest possible subnet would probably just switch to whatever the new smallest possible subnet was.

There probably is a way to ask my ISP for a larger block, but I think it would be nice to be able to subnet a /64 regardless.

CIDR and the resulting address space fragmentation was the problem that IPv6 was originally meant to solve; allowing splitting into random-sized subnets makes routing more complex and worse. And if you made the routable part of an IPv6 address longer than 64 bits then that makes the routing much more compute-intensive. 64 bits in the local part of the address is sort of overkill, but a 128 bit address isn't really any harder to use than a 96 bit address, and it means things like, well, being able to automatically assign the local part based on the MAC address, which only works if the local part of the address is more than 48 bits.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cool, but "read and change your data on all websites" is imho not worth the functionality. that seems ripe for takeover by some scammer.

Just download the repo as a zip file and manually upload it as an extension to your browser.

Note that the top-level manifest.json is for Chrome. To use it with Firefox, you have to copy "manifest/firefox-manifest.json" onto manifest.json first.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#75
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cool, but "read and change your data on all websites" is imho not worth the functionality. that seems ripe for takeover by some scammer.

IPvFoo author here. The problem is that there's no way to obtain the (hostname, ip) stream from Chrome/Firefox without requesting the "all websites" permission. In theory, browser vendors could define a narrowly-scoped permission that only reports (hostname, ip), or roll this functionality into the browser UI, but neither seems likely to happen. I made IPvFoo to promote IPv6 adoption, and wouldn't consider selling it…

Just wondering, do you expect non-scammers to have the $10m?

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#76
post #73
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There probably is a way to ask my ISP for a larger block, but I think it would be nice to be able to subnet a /64 regardless.

CIDR and the resulting address space fragmentation was the problem that IPv6 was originally meant to solve; allowing splitting into random-sized subnets makes routing more complex and worse. And if you made the routable part of an IPv6 address longer than 64 bits then that makes the routing much more compute-intensive. 64 bits in the local part of the address is sort of overkill, but a 128 bit address isn't really an…

You can still use a shorter hash of the Mac address.

Collisions are very unlikely, and a quick ARP packet should detect them if they do happen.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#77
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I could see larger addresses increasing latency ???

Several additional bytes over millions of packets where the data frame is ~10bytes seems potentially significant. I'm less interested in HTTP

20 bytes / 1 Gbps = 160 ns per hop. That's 0.016 ms additional latency over 100 hops.

On the internet, most links are faster than 1 Gbps and most paths are shorter than 100 hops, so that's a conservative estimate.

If you're sending lots of 10-byte payloads, then IPv6 requires (40+10)/(20+10)=166% as much network capacity, but are you really filling up an expensive link with VoIP traffic?

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#79
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cool, but "read and change your data on all websites" is imho not worth the functionality. that seems ripe for takeover by some scammer.

IPvFoo author here. The problem is that there's no way to obtain the (hostname, ip) stream from Chrome/Firefox without requesting the "all websites" permission. In theory, browser vendors could define a narrowly-scoped permission that only reports (hostname, ip), or roll this functionality into the browser UI, but neither seems likely to happen. I made IPvFoo to promote IPv6 adoption, and wouldn't consider selling it…

The danger with extension acquisitions is malicious buyers, who use their ability to run arbitrary code to steal credit card numbers or credentials, insert or replace ads, run cryptocurrency mining, etc. For malicious purposes number of installations is the important thing, not how clonable the extension is.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#80
post #68
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Published guidance says they're meant to give out at least a /56. I don't know that making autoallocation work on smaller subnets would help with this problem - ISPs that currently give out the smallest possible subnet would probably just switch to whatever the new smallest possible subnet was.

There probably is a way to ask my ISP for a larger block, but I think it would be nice to be able to subnet a /64 regardless.

On Comcast Business the SLAAC would hand out a /64, and DHCPv6 would give you a /64 unless you requested "Prefix Delegation" in which case they'd give you a /56, /58 or /60 depending on how large your static IPv4 allocation was.
Post reply on HN