4 ms·

IPv6 will never be universally adopted because they chose to make baroque auto configuration features, and the propeller heads, who are forcing this on everyone

IPv6 will never be universally adopted because they chose to make baroque auto configuration features, and the propeller heads, who are forcing this on everyone, gaslight us by telling us we shouldn't rely on having a private address space as a way of having control over your own network.

Spivak 5y ago
I’m so confused, why can’t you have a private network? It’s the best way to run it. You get a pool of public addresses to use from your ISP that you can use for anything! and then you give yourself the entirety of IPv6 private address space for your internal network.
- ok123456 5y ago
  But now you're relying on your ISP to do your network addressing for you. What happens when you have multiple sites? Now you have to do more ipv6 epicycles.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Sorry, guess I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about using NAT with IPv6 being the best way to set it up. Your ISP gives you a whole pool of public addresses you can use for hosting stuff publicly or forwarding or high availability. None of your devices will have public addresses. Then you use all of the private address space for your internal stuff.
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      Well, why don't you just do that? I mean, there's a huge set of local IPv6 addresses for you to use, and odds are all of your computers are already using some (maybe more than 1). You don't need a NAT box at the network edge to set a private network. And iptables support what you described without a problem. But most people prefer to allocate the public addresses to the actual computers, not route them by demand. So the edge machine acts only as a firewall. It's easier, and there are enough addresses.
    - slownews45 5y ago
      I tried this. It doesn't work. First, which ISPs give you the static IPv6 blocks? Its pretty easy (for $10/month) to get a block of IPv4, but I had a hard time getting anyone to find any free IPv6 addresses (oddly).
znpy 5y ago
Ironically you have more than one way to address stuff locally. And of course they don't necessarily work with each other.
slownews45 5y ago
My current setup is comcast and att to the net. Internally I've got a DHCP server, with reservations for key equipment (ie do a certificate issuance for these as well) - think proxmox / esxi web interfaces). A few items x.x.x.20 and less static IP (ie, gateway etc). This system works great. Comcast down? No worries, failover to ATT (and visa versa). Everything works through the NAT, failover is seamless. I've spent a bit of time naively trying to get ipv6 to work as smoothly. The way IPv6 addresses are handed out, auto-change, are typed etc. It's just no where near as smooth. We needed IPv5 - I basic extension to address range - that's it. Just add another 0-255 at the beginning or end of things and be done. My other complaint. Desite supposedly having more ipv6 addresses, my ISP WILL NOT give me a static block / prefix etc. In other words, there are enough IPv4 addresses that I can get a block of 5 static IPv4 addresses, but CANNOT pay for a static IPv6 block. What's the limit / issue with giving me a static IP prefix if I'm willing to pay? Seriously... I feel like proponents of Ipv6 have not actually tried to use it at the consumer / prosumer / small business level.
- nrabulinski 5y ago
  To answer your last point - it’s not IPv6’s fault but ISP’s. In most of the EU it’s trivial to get even more than one static v6 prefix and I wish I didn’t have to deal with NAT or even double NAT as it’s more and more common and instead could just run v6 only.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    Awesome! I'm in the US. I gave up on some SIP/VOIP stuff because this (and other protocols) generate lag etc when you are going device > NAT > server > NAT > device route, vs device to device. I just need ONE prefix, but a group of 5 or 8 would be amazing (then you could use the default IPv6 scheme for addressing things). Maybe there is hope, the US lags in some of this a fair bit. There should be enough space it would seem.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > We needed IPv5 Interesting trivia: The experimental Inter Streaming Protocol (ST) used version 5 in the IP header, though it was never officially known as IPv5. Consequently, IPv6 is so numbered to avoid confusion.
throw0101a 5y ago
> IPv6 will never be universally adopted because they chose to make baroque auto configuration features What is "baroque" about it? It probably takes less infrastructure than IPv4. In fact there are standards in the embedded space that use the auto-config features to reduce the infrastructure needed to work: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMEA_OneNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMEA_OneNet * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118 (EV charging)
- ok123456 5y ago
  How about the fact there are at least four different ways to do auto-configuration.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    1. SLAAC 2. DHCPv6 (optional) Which is the same as IPv4: 169.254.0.0/16 and DHCPv4. Except 169.254.0.0/16 can't get you universal connectivity, only link-local.
  - fulafel 5y ago
    2, like with v6. 3, if you count link local (like with v6).
kloch 5y ago
This was a huge problem with the IETF early on but real network operators persisted and got fully functional vrrp, dhcp, and private networks for v6 years ago. As for disabling autoconfiguration, high end network hardware has always supported disabling router advertisements. Consumer devices should have this option, there is no reason not to. A generic workaround in any case is to configure the local subnet with a prefix length other than /64.

Spivak 5y ago

I’m so confused, why can’t you have a private network? It’s the best way to run it. You get a pool of public addresses to use from your ISP that you can use for anything! and then you give yourself the entirety of IPv6 private address space for your internal network.

ok123456 5y ago
But now you're relying on your ISP to do your network addressing for you. What happens when you have multiple sites? Now you have to do more ipv6 epicycles.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Spivak 5y ago
  Sorry, guess I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about using NAT with IPv6 being the best way to set it up. Your ISP gives you a whole pool of public addresses you can use for hosting stuff publicly or forwarding or high availability. None of your devices will have public addresses. Then you use all of the private address space for your internal stuff.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    Well, why don't you just do that? I mean, there's a huge set of local IPv6 addresses for you to use, and odds are all of your computers are already using some (maybe more than 1). You don't need a NAT box at the network edge to set a private network. And iptables support what you described without a problem. But most people prefer to allocate the public addresses to the actual computers, not route them by demand. So the edge machine acts only as a firewall. It's easier, and there are enough addresses.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    I tried this. It doesn't work. First, which ISPs give you the static IPv6 blocks? Its pretty easy (for $10/month) to get a block of IPv4, but I had a hard time getting anyone to find any free IPv6 addresses (oddly).

znpy 5y ago

Ironically you have more than one way to address stuff locally. And of course they don't necessarily work with each other.

slownews45 5y ago

My current setup is comcast and att to the net. Internally I've got a DHCP server, with reservations for key equipment (ie do a certificate issuance for these as well) - think proxmox / esxi web interfaces). A few items x.x.x.20 and less static IP (ie, gateway etc). This system works great. Comcast down? No worries, failover to ATT (and visa versa). Everything works through the NAT, failover is seamless. I've spent a bit of time naively trying to get ipv6 to work as smoothly. The way IPv6 addresses are handed out, auto-change, are typed etc. It's just no where near as smooth. We needed IPv5 - I basic extension to address range - that's it. Just add another 0-255 at the beginning or end of things and be done. My other complaint. Desite supposedly having more ipv6 addresses, my ISP WILL NOT give me a static block / prefix etc. In other words, there are enough IPv4 addresses that I can get a block of 5 static IPv4 addresses, but CANNOT pay for a static IPv6 block. What's the limit / issue with giving me a static IP prefix if I'm willing to pay? Seriously... I feel like proponents of Ipv6 have not actually tried to use it at the consumer / prosumer / small business level.

nrabulinski 5y ago
To answer your last point - it’s not IPv6’s fault but ISP’s. In most of the EU it’s trivial to get even more than one static v6 prefix and I wish I didn’t have to deal with NAT or even double NAT as it’s more and more common and instead could just run v6 only.
- slownews45 5y ago
  Awesome! I'm in the US. I gave up on some SIP/VOIP stuff because this (and other protocols) generate lag etc when you are going device > NAT > server > NAT > device route, vs device to device. I just need ONE prefix, but a group of 5 or 8 would be amazing (then you could use the default IPv6 scheme for addressing things). Maybe there is hope, the US lags in some of this a fair bit. There should be enough space it would seem.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> We needed IPv5 Interesting trivia: The experimental Inter Streaming Protocol (ST) used version 5 in the IP header, though it was never officially known as IPv5. Consequently, IPv6 is so numbered to avoid confusion.

throw0101a 5y ago

> IPv6 will never be universally adopted because they chose to make baroque auto configuration features What is "baroque" about it? It probably takes less infrastructure than IPv4. In fact there are standards in the embedded space that use the auto-config features to reduce the infrastructure needed to work: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMEA_OneNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMEA_OneNet * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118 (EV charging)

ok123456 5y ago
How about the fact there are at least four different ways to do auto-configuration.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  1. SLAAC 2. DHCPv6 (optional) Which is the same as IPv4: 169.254.0.0/16 and DHCPv4. Except 169.254.0.0/16 can't get you universal connectivity, only link-local.
- fulafel 5y ago
  2, like with v6. 3, if you count link local (like with v6).

kloch 5y ago

This was a huge problem with the IETF early on but real network operators persisted and got fully functional vrrp, dhcp, and private networks for v6 years ago. As for disabling autoconfiguration, high end network hardware has always supported disabling router advertisements. Consumer devices should have this option, there is no reason not to. A generic workaround in any case is to configure the local subnet with a prefix length other than /64.