4 ms·

I'll just say one thing regarding my own home network setup: go IPv6 only. Ditch IPv4, except for the necessary evil that is NAT64/DNS64. I refuse to network an

by kccqzy 4y ago

I'll just say one thing regarding my own home network setup: go IPv6 only. Ditch IPv4, except for the necessary evil that is NAT64/DNS64. I refuse to network any device that does not support IPv6, and I refuse to use any app that chooses not to use the IPv6 addresses present.

npteljes 4y ago
Why do you do this? Principle, or does it have an actual advantage?
- kccqzy 4y ago
  Mostly principle. The internet is designed for end-to-end connectivity; let's strive for a more decentralized internet by giving big cloud and residential users equal access by removing NAT. As for actual advantage, I can think of reduced configuration burden since you don't have to maintain two sets of firewall configs for dual-stack hosts. It's a small advantage only. On the other hand, I'll be honest with you, there are disadvantages. As recently as 2021, people are still discovering problems on IPv6-only networks that necessitate writing new RFCs to mandate new behavior. Yes I'm talking about https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9131.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9131.html It's because of the low prevalence of IPv6-only networks that changes as fundamental as Neighbor Discovery have to be proposed in this decade.
  - npteljes 4y ago
    I think that's a nice framing for the issue! IPv6 adoption is really slow, considering that I've been hearing about the necessity for what seems like two decades now.
manv1 4y ago
Yes, because I want my internal home devices publicly accessible by default. Seriously, the global addressability of ipv6 is something that people used to using ipv4/NAT tend to forget. I know a bunch of people (well, two) that make a living scanning for IPv6 addresses inside networks that the admins didn't realize were open to the world.
- fulafel 4y ago
  Addressability != accessability of course.
- sgtnoodle 4y ago
  I've been trying to embrace IPv6 as much as possible in my home setup. Something funny I noticed, though, is that ICMP ping times are 30ms higher over IPv6 vs. IPv4 between the same two hosts when the packets go over a wireless WDS link. I have yet to explain it.
  - kccqzy 4y ago
    Yeah ISPs route IPv4 and IPv6 traffic differently. They are after all independent inter-networks.
    - sgtnoodle 4y ago
      I'm talking about my own traffic inside my LAN, though. It's all switched or bridged at layer 2, without any layer 3 routing. I get 30ms vs. 2ms ping times, where the only difference is the IP version. My current theory is that the WDS link devices' wifi firmware or drivers are doing some sort of packet content based QoS. They see the IPv4 ICMP ping request go by and optimize for return latency. The IPv6 ICMP ping request, on the other hand, doesn't. It's like diesel emissions cheating by having the car detect it's on a dyno...
irusensei 4y ago
Stupid ISPs distributing /64 to their home customers.

by kccqzy 4y ago

npteljes 4y ago

Why do you do this? Principle, or does it have an actual advantage?

kccqzy 4y ago
Mostly principle. The internet is designed for end-to-end connectivity; let's strive for a more decentralized internet by giving big cloud and residential users equal access by removing NAT. As for actual advantage, I can think of reduced configuration burden since you don't have to maintain two sets of firewall configs for dual-stack hosts. It's a small advantage only. On the other hand, I'll be honest with you, there are disadvantages. As recently as 2021, people are still discovering problems on IPv6-only networks that necessitate writing new RFCs to mandate new behavior. Yes I'm talking about https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9131.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9131.html It's because of the low prevalence of IPv6-only networks that changes as fundamental as Neighbor Discovery have to be proposed in this decade.
- npteljes 4y ago
  I think that's a nice framing for the issue! IPv6 adoption is really slow, considering that I've been hearing about the necessity for what seems like two decades now.

manv1 4y ago

Yes, because I want my internal home devices publicly accessible by default. Seriously, the global addressability of ipv6 is something that people used to using ipv4/NAT tend to forget. I know a bunch of people (well, two) that make a living scanning for IPv6 addresses inside networks that the admins didn't realize were open to the world.

fulafel 4y ago
Addressability != accessability of course.
sgtnoodle 4y ago
I've been trying to embrace IPv6 as much as possible in my home setup. Something funny I noticed, though, is that ICMP ping times are 30ms higher over IPv6 vs. IPv4 between the same two hosts when the packets go over a wireless WDS link. I have yet to explain it.
- kccqzy 4y ago
  Yeah ISPs route IPv4 and IPv6 traffic differently. They are after all independent inter-networks.
  - sgtnoodle 4y ago
    I'm talking about my own traffic inside my LAN, though. It's all switched or bridged at layer 2, without any layer 3 routing. I get 30ms vs. 2ms ping times, where the only difference is the IP version. My current theory is that the WDS link devices' wifi firmware or drivers are doing some sort of packet content based QoS. They see the IPv4 ICMP ping request go by and optimize for return latency. The IPv6 ICMP ping request, on the other hand, doesn't. It's like diesel emissions cheating by having the car detect it's on a dyno...

irusensei 4y ago

Stupid ISPs distributing /64 to their home customers.