6 ms·
IPv6 is pretty great. You don’t run out of numbers locally, you don’t run out of numbers globally. Most software and OSs just support it these days… many embedd
by imoverclocked 4y ago
IPv6 is pretty great. You don’t run out of numbers locally, you don’t run out of numbers globally. Most software and OSs just support it these days… many embedded things still don’t.
I think the biggest pain point with IPv6 adoption is probably the large number of customers with a little netgear router that doesn’t know how to pass IPv6 through it. I also think local administrators that still purchase stuff that doesn’t support IPv6 are just shooting themselves in the foot. After all, the writing has been on the wall for over two decades.
- kps 4y ago> many embedded things still don’t. For home IoT, Matter uses IPv6, and may start picking up this year. (I worked on some IPv6-related things for it for my then-employer.)
- STM32F030R8 4y agoMatter is based on thread which is full IPv6 I believe and thread has been around a while.
- fafqg 4y ago>IPv6 is pretty great. You don’t run out of numbers locally, you don’t run out of numbers globally. If that's everything IPv6 has going for it it's no wonder its adoption is still so low.
- anecdotal1 4y agoBased on the way IPv6 is currently allocated we only leverage about 56 bits of usable address space but IPv4 with NAT gives us a max of 96 bits of address space Edit: don't know why I'm being downvoted, I guess the network gurus here don't research https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2017-09/natdefence.html https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2017-09/natdefence.html
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago> IPv4 with NAT gives us a max of 96 bits of address space But then you need NAT piercing everywhere for even "basic use". How is not being able to connect to things "usable"? By that same metric, you also get a bare minimum, naive count of of 144 bits of IPv6 address with 2 layers of link-local address + all ports. 144 is much larger that 96. Even the naive 64 bits "just use one layer of link-local" is still larger that the entire current 32-bits of IPv4.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y agoI think the point is that 96 is quite enough to not run out. Which is plausibly fair, if you can actually get that many bits (or close enough to actually cover everyone) and can deal with the ugliness of NAT. It's especially fair, I think, to argue that the reason that IPv6 adoption has been so slow is because IPv4+NAT is good enough for most people. Just because IPv6 is better doesn't mean that people will want it if the old option can be hacked up to keep working.
- labcomputer 4y agoSo is 56. That’s about 9 million addresses for every human on earth. And, of course OP is wrong about 56 anyway, but so it goes
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y agoOh, sure; arguing that IPv6 doesn't, in any way shape or form, have enough addresses would be extremely misguided. I was reading it as "IPv4 already has enough address space (if we include NAT) so we don't need to deal with v6".
- RealStickman_ 4y agoA real pain point with IPv6 is being unable to make subnets smaller than /64. So much wasted space and hassle to get more than one network going.
- icedchai 4y agoIPv6 subnets are supposed to be super cheap. As an individual, through a RIPE LIR, I was able to get a /44 (2^20 /64 subnets), no questions asked. I have these tunneled into my home lab and a couple other locations. I realize my setup is unusual: I have my own ASN and am running BGP.
- lmm 4y agoIn most countries you can't even get an ASN as a private individual. I found I couldn't without having a business identity.
- greyface- 4y agoFWIW, ARIN will let you register as an individual sole proprietor, even in jurisdictions where this doesn't require state registration/licensing.
- icedchai 4y agoIf you work with a RIPE LIR, they may be more than willing to help you, even if you are outside of Europe. You just need a "presence" in Europe, which can be virtual (a VPS counts.) I am in the ARIN region but I did not want to pay the ARIN registration fees for an ASN. It was $550 + $150/year, so I went with a RIPE LIR.
- jeroenhd 4y agoThere's no technical reason why you can't if you use active DHCPv6 and other such tricks. They make life harder than standard IPv6, but there's no reason why you can't turn one of your /64s into /120s. With a /56 being the standardised assignment for ISP customers (=256 subnets), I think there's more than enough space for a home network. /48s used to be the recommended space assignment but I think these days you can only get those as a business customer or through an independent party (i.e. Tunnelbroker).
- JohnFen 4y ago> After all, the writing has been on the wall for over two decades. That IPv6 has been around so long and is still not ubiquitous means that writing is faded and partially obscured by graffiti.
- imoverclocked 4y agoAnything as large and hodgepodge as the Internet isn’t going to change in a day. I’d say that the writing has been kept fresh [1] and the underlying need hasn’t gone away. [1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- JohnFen 4y ago25 years is a whole lot longer than a day! > the underlying need hasn’t gone away That's 100% true. I think almost everyone sees the problem that IPv6 is addressing.
- robertlagrant 4y ago> IPv6 is addressing Exactly!
- xvilka 4y agoBiggest pain point in adoption are lazy ISPs who actively resist the transition. Once it's mandated, like in India or China, transition happens very quickly.
- JohnFen 4y agoI don't think it's lazy ISPs, I think it's economics. I think it's that the cost/benefit ratio of making the change isn't clearly favorable to making the change.
- cramjabsyn 4y agoThe IPv6 spec was published in 1998. 25 years on it should be nearly flawless. Not “most software,” all software including firewalls should support it with safe and sensible defaults. The current state of support and adoption is frankly abysmal. The attack surface is non-negligable. And there is no end in sight. The idea of deploying a new version of the internet protocol (which lacks backwards compatibility for reasons) in parallel to the existing version should never have left the drafting table.
- acdha 4y agoI agree it should be better but you’re talking roughly half of Google’s total traffic now, and it’s really common for people to be using it without even realizing that so I’m not sure I’d call it abysmal in the context of a large distributed system operated by millions of independent organizations around the world.
- JohnFen 4y agoMy understanding is that's because of smartphones, which automatically and seamlessly use IPv6, and most carriers support IPv6. Outside of the world of smartphones, though, adoption is awful.
- bauruine 4y agoThats the case in the US afaik. I don't know the stats globally but Switzerland has 40% and no mobile carrier supports IPv6 yet.
- acdha 4y agoPhone carriers are responsible for a lot because they had nowhere near enough IPv4 capacity to handle all of the phones & other devices, but it’s not just them. A lot of people use IPv6 but never realize it because the experience is so smooth — all browsers use Happy Eyeballs and it tends to pick IPv6 because it’s often faster. I know that because I semi-regularly get support requests from developers wondering why they couldn’t access an IP-restricted service because they didn’t even realize that their browser had picked the IPv6 record because it responded faster.