22 ms·
And yet my ISP still doesn't support IPv6... Until something forces the transition nothing is going to change.
by ndmrs 7y ago
And yet my ISP still doesn't support IPv6...
Until something forces the transition nothing is going to change.
- maltalex 7y agoWhy are you, as a consumer, interested in switching to IPv6?
- oarsinsync 7y agoMy ISP provides me with a CGN IPv4 address. I have no ability to access any self-hosted services, unless I pay them money for a static globally routable address, or pay some other company to provide this through some other means (e.g. VPN, VPS, etc) If they supported IPv6, and gave me a globally routable address that was unfiltered except at my gateway, I'd be happier.
- iicc 7y agoThere's the Hurricane Electric IPv6 Tunnel Broker: https://tunnelbroker.net/ https://tunnelbroker.net/ >Our free tunnel broker service enables you to reach the IPv6 Internet by tunneling over existing IPv4 connections from your IPv6 enabled host or router to one of our IPv6 routers. (It's still obviously less direct, and inferior to your ISP supplying native IPv6, but it may improve your situation.)
- ecksii 7y agoThat solution requires a routable, Non-RFC1918, IPv4 address somewhere to work. If I understand CG-NAT correctly, you don't get a routable address on your equipment.
- iicc 7y agoYou're right. HE is 6in4 and won't work. There's a list of brokers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_tunnel_brokers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_tunnel_brokers https://6project.org/ https://6project.org/ looks viable (OpenVPN) and cheap.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jedberg 7y agoNot OP, but I can tell you why I as a consumer am very much not interested in IPv6. My ISP supports it, but I have intentionally disabled it. It only causes problems for me with absolutely no gain. There isn't a single website I can't reach, and no website that I've found runs any quicker when using IPv6. But at the same time, if I have v6 on, it causes delays in name resolution and sometimes I just can't connect to a site until I disable v6. I still have an addressable v4 address, so I can still run a home server. I don't know how to fix this. I know that v6 is good for the planet, and I know these problems won't get better until more people are using v6, but it's definitely a chicken/egg problem.
- q3k 7y ago> But at the same time, if I have v6 on, it causes delays in name resolution and sometimes I just can't connect to a site until I disable v6. That sounds like your ISP does not actually support IPv6, eg. doesn't have the full Internet routing table for v6. I've seen this happen. DNS v4/v6 resolutions can also hang with glibc because of a well known bug with Happy Eyeballs when ISPs that fuck up outgoing DNS packets (eg. messed up stateful NAT/DPI). "options single-request-reopen" in /etc/resolv.conf is a workaround. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505105 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505105. I would contact your ISP, or at least publically shame them. This is not how IPv6 Internet should work (source: we provide IPv4/v6 as an ISP and take care to prevent issues like this).
- jedberg 7y agoIt's AT&T (UVerse). If they can't get it right, I don't have much hope for anyone else. Also, I don't even use my ISPs name servers, I use Cloudflare or Google, so I don't think it's that unless the ISP is somehow munging the packet in transit, which I suppose is possible. Honestly I think it is all due to issues with the v6 stack in MacOS. But my point is, I shouldn't have to be a network engineer to make v6 work. I should be able to turn on my computer and just have it work.
- scurvy 7y ago
- badrabbit 7y agoLikewise, curious. Would be neat to have it but as someone who supported consumers,v6 is a pain(or rather v4 is still so easy people prefer it when making new software).
- coldpie 7y agoI think it'd be cool to access my home machine from anywhere without bothering with port forwarding stuff.
- ATsch 7y agoWell, you still need to bother with adding firewall rules. But that's a lot less annoying than port forwarding, I agree.
- q3k 7y agoNot OP, but with more and more IPv4 traffic behind CGNATs, IPv6 begins to be a much better experience. CGNATs tend to be massively overloaded, and as such accessing IPv4 Internet (especially CDNs for multimedia) will tend to result in low speed and dropped connections at peak hours.
- p1mrx 7y agoThis is the answer. IPv6 was always about maintaining the status quo. It doesn't become "better" than IPv4 until CGNAT makes IPv4 worse. (Or if your internal network reaches the scaling limits of RFC1918.)
- superkuh 7y agoBecause adoption of ipv6 allows everyone to be an equal on the internet again. Right now half of the computers hooked up to the 'net aren't even given a routable IP address. They're behind carrier NAT unable to participate like a real computer. They can't use protocols, they can only consume third party services over HTTP/S for the most part. If everyone is routable it cuts the gordian knot in the "What kind of content should be allowed on our platform?" question by allowing everyone to simply be their own platform. If ipv6 gets adopted fast enough it might just save the 'net from being just a more privacy invasive form of television.
- close04 7y ago> be their own platform The public commercial platforms offer far more than just a routable IP. You get reach, reliability, resilience, and security (the kind you don't get to build yourself). Being your own YouTube/FB/Twitter/someChan/etc. platform means almost nobody will ever hear about you, the ones that do can easily wipe you off the internet, coming back is a real hassle, and that your data will leak is basically a forgone conclusion. Being your own Dropbox/GDrive may not need the reach but still relies the other three to provide value. And the list can go on for almost anything you can think of for "being your own platform". The overwhelmingly vast majority of people have little to no interest in building and maintaining any such platform. It's why so few people actually do it today even when having a routable address. It's inconvenient even for skilled people, let alone regular ones. I'll wait for a counterargument.
- echelon 7y agoBack in my day bittorrent was pretty popular. We'd have doused Zuck's dorm room sever in gasoline if we'd known what was to happen.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- close04 7y agoBut that wasn't your own platform was it? It was explicitly distributed. The crux of my comment was the "own" part. You don't just have a share in it, it's yours.
- ndmrs 7y agoMy interest is twofold: a) for one as a response against CGN, thankfully my ISP isn't using one right now but I have a hunch they're going to start becoming a lot more common in the future. and b) as a hacker I'm interested to finally set it up and play around with it. Also IMO even if it doesn't bring any improvements to the general consumer given all the pressure to start switching to IPv6 it is a good thing to be interested about it, pressuring more ISPs to start supporting it.
- distantsounds 7y agothe casual user at home, with no exposed services to the public, has no real need for a short ipv4 address. ipv6 would suffice just fine for the end user, and the isp can handle the v6-to-v4 translation in their own infrastructure. this would free up a substantial amount of ipv4 space. the isp could also provide dynamic dns as part of their package for users who do want to access their devices at home. why remember a 4-octet ip when you can get your own subdomain from your internet provider?
- ivlad 7y agoThat’s not entirely true. Everything p2p is complicated with nat2nat and requires things like STUN, which are not working reliably all the time. Casual users need IPv6 to get better video and voice chats, as well as interactive gaming experience.
- freehunter 7y agoThis is an incredibly niche concern, but I fought to get IPv6 working for myself because I have an EC2 instance that auto-sleeps when I'm not using it (to save money) and every time it wakes up the IPv4 address changes. Amazon will give me a static address but unless the machine is running the static address costs money. Again the whole point was to save money... and static IPv6 addresses are free on AWS. So as long as I connect to the EC2 instance over IPv6, I get a free static IP address on my server.
- ecksii 7y agoThat's a direct side affect of the difference in cost between IPv4 addresses and IPv6 addresses. If IPv4 addresses weren't economically rare, AWS would charge for them.
- imtringued 7y agoDoes anything prevent you from using a free DynDNS provider?
- freehunter 7y agoThere were a number of good choices. I chose ipv6 mostly because I wanted an excuse to try ipv6. I did consider dynamic dns but didn’t explore it much.
- everdrive 7y agoI would be if I could pick and choose different parts of the protocol. I don't want each interface to have multiple IPs, and I don't want to jump through hoops to assign static IPs to devices. I don't want to have each device reporting its domain to circumvent the IP problem, and I certainly never wanted 128 bit numbers.
- mrweasel 7y agoI’m not a regular consumer, because my views are based on being a system administrator for a company that have a ton of dual stacked and IPv6 only server, but I want IPv6 at home because I want IPv4 to go away completely. No IPv4 would remove a lot of confusion and silly work-arounds.
- simias 7y agoHaving just spend two hours messing with a tricky NAT configuration (VPNs were involved) I'd very gladly move to full IPv6 everywhere, thank you.
- crest 7y agoI hate dealing with NAT and split horizon DNS to access my NAS.
- adrianmonk 7y agoI think economics are the best candidate to force it. Until IPv4 addresses get actually scarce, in a practical way that directly impacts people (not just a future, we gotta solve this eventually way), people won't feel the heat. And before now, there were still some unused addresses available. We've just begun the phase where we have to scrounge for loose change in the couch cushions. Previously there was money in the wallet. (Only a little, but that's what you use first.) My guess is scrounging will initially be easy. Then it will get gradually harder, until eventually it becomes easier to just use IPv6, and then people will switch over.
- jasonjayr 7y agoI bet Residential ISP's turn to CGNAT before they roll out IPV6.
- iagovar 7y agoThey are alaready doing so. IPv6 test enviroments has been a disaster in the ISP I work for, too many devices don't support IPv6 in the domestic market and solution to router IPv4 over IPv6 are problematic.
- freedomben 7y agoVery interesting, thanks for sharing. What kind of devices are they? IoT type stuff, smart TVs, etc?
- ecksii 7y agoRight now IoT devices use a communications model that overcome's NAT by tying the device to a service endpoint in the cloud. The device registers itself as an IoT device in aws and then your local hosts hit the device by going to the device endpoint in the cloud. I don't know if this model will hold up when IPv6 more widely supported though.
- jaywalk 7y agoThe largest ISP in the US, Comcast, has deployed IPv6 on 100% of their network. If they can do it, why can't you?
- forgot-my-pw 7y agoAlso, only 25% of top 1000 alexa websites has IPv6: https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ The adoption rate has been really slow.