11 ms·

Why is switching to ipv6 something to look forward too? What are the benefits?

by bdlowery 4y ago

fzfaa 4y ago
Easier to bypass bans.
- pilif 4y ago
  not really. By banning the whole /64 prefix, you get the same effect that you got from banning a single IPv4 address.
  - xena 4y ago
    Unless the person uses t-mobile, which puts a lot of people on very small IP blocks, which is such a huge logistical nightmare for enforcing bans. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32038215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32038215
  - d110af5ccf 4y ago
    You have to be careful about that, not everyone hands out /64. They can be as small as /128 and I've seen some providers give out as large as /48.
    - blurrybird 4y ago
      /48 is the recommendation for home users now. My ISP (Aussie Broadband) follows that recommendation and provides me with a /48 that I can break into multiple /56s or /64s.
      - d110af5ccf 4y ago
        I'd prefer a much smaller range but being able to request as many as I want via DHCP (or equivalent mechanism). That way it wouldn't be contiguous so I wouldn't feel as much of a need to use a VPN for privacy. As it is, what's the point of handing me an entire /48 if I just end up forcing most of my traffic through a single IPv4 address with a VPN for most of my web browsing anyway? Although to be fair even with non-contiguous address space I might still want a VPN since ISPs in the US are allowed to sell your browsing history. Also if I'm hosting a public facing service at home I'm going to proxy it via wireguard through a VPS I rent for obvious security reasons. I don't actually want public facing services directly exposed from my home network and I have to question the sanity of anyone who says they do. And I've always disabled webrtc for obvious privacy (ie network fingerprinting) reasons. What's so great about getting rid of NAT again?
ur-whale 4y ago
> What are the benefits? Being able to access the site from my IPV6 only devices?
- speedgoose 4y ago
  How many humans browse internet with IPv6 only devices?
  - miyuru 4y ago
    some humans do. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31715661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31715661
    - speedgoose 4y ago
      Interesting, so one stubborn guy in USA who decided to sell broken internet access to its customers. I'm sure they are happy, if this story is true.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Most mobile phones are v6 only and then go through increasingly unreliable CGNAT setups for v4
    - speedgoose 4y ago
      So they are not IPv6 only if I understand well. Why a CGNAT would be unreliable?
      - joshenders 4y ago
        Yet another over-subscribed device to rewrite packets between you and your destination. Spontaneous connection failures due to port exhaustion or overly aggressive connection timers/recycling. Lack of public to private connectability due to absence of port mapping, or any way to influence the configuration of your carrier’s device.
    - 4y ago
blurrybird 4y ago
Faster global routing due to simpler routing tables.

Why is switching to ipv6 something to look forward too? What are the benefits?

fzfaa 4y ago

Easier to bypass bans.

pilif 4y ago
not really. By banning the whole /64 prefix, you get the same effect that you got from banning a single IPv4 address.
- xena 4y ago
  Unless the person uses t-mobile, which puts a lot of people on very small IP blocks, which is such a huge logistical nightmare for enforcing bans. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32038215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32038215
- d110af5ccf 4y ago
  You have to be careful about that, not everyone hands out /64. They can be as small as /128 and I've seen some providers give out as large as /48.
  - blurrybird 4y ago
    /48 is the recommendation for home users now. My ISP (Aussie Broadband) follows that recommendation and provides me with a /48 that I can break into multiple /56s or /64s.
    - d110af5ccf 4y ago
      I'd prefer a much smaller range but being able to request as many as I want via DHCP (or equivalent mechanism). That way it wouldn't be contiguous so I wouldn't feel as much of a need to use a VPN for privacy. As it is, what's the point of handing me an entire /48 if I just end up forcing most of my traffic through a single IPv4 address with a VPN for most of my web browsing anyway? Although to be fair even with non-contiguous address space I might still want a VPN since ISPs in the US are allowed to sell your browsing history. Also if I'm hosting a public facing service at home I'm going to proxy it via wireguard through a VPS I rent for obvious security reasons. I don't actually want public facing services directly exposed from my home network and I have to question the sanity of anyone who says they do. And I've always disabled webrtc for obvious privacy (ie network fingerprinting) reasons. What's so great about getting rid of NAT again?

ur-whale 4y ago

> What are the benefits? Being able to access the site from my IPV6 only devices?

speedgoose 4y ago
How many humans browse internet with IPv6 only devices?
- miyuru 4y ago
  some humans do. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31715661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31715661
  - speedgoose 4y ago
    Interesting, so one stubborn guy in USA who decided to sell broken internet access to its customers. I'm sure they are happy, if this story is true.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Most mobile phones are v6 only and then go through increasingly unreliable CGNAT setups for v4
  - speedgoose 4y ago
    So they are not IPv6 only if I understand well. Why a CGNAT would be unreliable?
    - joshenders 4y ago
      Yet another over-subscribed device to rewrite packets between you and your destination. Spontaneous connection failures due to port exhaustion or overly aggressive connection timers/recycling. Lack of public to private connectability due to absence of port mapping, or any way to influence the configuration of your carrier’s device.
  - 4y ago

blurrybird 4y ago

Faster global routing due to simpler routing tables.