7 ms·

Time to move to IPV6.

by zapdrive 3y ago

crims0n 3y ago
Obligatory IPv6 is an academic solution to an engineering problem.
- zapdrive 3y ago
  No it isn't.
  - crims0n 3y ago
    Not literally no, but the spirit of the sentiment is true. Have been in some flavor of networking for the past decade, there is a reason it hasn’t been universally adopted despite being ratified 25 years ago.
    - betaby 3y ago
      We can say that IPv6 is universally adopted for mobile networks.
      - mbreese 3y ago
        But does it universally go IPv6 to IPv6 or IPv6 to an NAT64 gateway? Isn't CGNAT also popular for mobile networks?
        betaby 3y ago
        Most of the traffic in mobile operator networks I'm aware of is IPv6 to IPv6, for very obvious reason - people watching youtube, facebook et al, and they are IPv6 enabled for over 10+ years. Of course one need to provide IPv4 reach-ability as well, details are varies from network to network, 464XLAT is being a popular one.
        ianburrell 3y ago
        The big reason mobile networks use IPv6 is that they are new and don't have the IPv4 allocations of legacy providers. They could have gone CGNAT, but IPv6 with 464XLAT is better. Mobile networks are easier to use IPv6 than home networks since there is no customer gateway to worry about and 464XLAT software is included on device.
        ben0x539 3y ago
        It's "popular" in that it's widely deployed, but I think it's fairly unpopular in that people really don't enjoy operating it. When I worked for a high traffic website, I was told people would occasionally reach out like "hey can we just ipv6-peer with y'all so our users don't have to talk to you over our cgnat. it's putting a ton of load on the cgnat gateway".
        sgjohnson 3y ago
        CGNAT is a set of hacks on top of another set of hacks. You can keep stacking NAT on top of NAT for near-infinite amount of IP addresses, but what you can't do is you can't multiply the number of ports. Before I switched ISPs, my home ISP was using CGNAT with no IPv6. It was trivial to completely screw up the connectivity for myself (and probably a lot of other users) by simply running a BitTorrent client with connection limit disabled. Popular? Yes. A good solution? Definitely not.
        xnyanta 3y ago
        No one who operates a CGNAT enjoys it or wants to operate a CGNAT. I'd wager that most mobile network traffic is native IPv6 to IPv6 because all of the super high volume FAANG et al websites are operating IPv6.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  It was developed by the IETF in a working group led by engineers from Cisco and Nokia. It’s approximately as far from an academic solution as you can get.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    An engineer would have preferred to add an additional byte (255.255.255.255.255) if the issue was really about addressing. Exactly like we did with telephone numbers.
    - sgjohnson 3y ago
      No. IPv6 is significantly easier to subnet. I can tell you the start and finish of 2a07:ffdd::/29 from the top of my head (it's 2a07:ffd8:: - 2a07:ffdf:ffff.....), because there's a nibble boundary every 4 bits, which makes it trivial. IPv6 has 31 nibble boundaries. IPv4 has 3. Do me a 10.15.121.75/19 from the top of your head. I would choose working with IPv6 addresses over IPv4 any time of day. Engineers added 12 additional bytes requiring the switch to a hexadecimal notation, because 255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255 would be a little bit too long.
mike_hock 3y ago
All IP addresses equal? "Colon-zero" addresses are less equal.
- dpifke 3y ago
  For those that don't know: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291#section-2.6.1 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291#section-2.6.1 Linux in particular, if IPv6 forwarding is enabled, will automatically add an anycast route for the 0'th subnet address. (Unless it's a /127 subnet per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6164 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6164.)
codegeek 3y ago
Haven't we saying this for years now ? Why has IPV6 adoption failed ?
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  They added features that weren't needed, and those new features break compatibility. IPv6 is the Python 3 of the network stack.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    In both cases the migration happened eventually. All my devices have and use v6, and I haven't had to touch Python 2.6 in years. Yes, there are still people stuck with v4 networks and 2.6-era codebases. These are legacy cases that are increasingly buried deep in the long tail of interoperability.
- NegativeK 3y ago
  Because it costs money to maintain both stacks, it costs money to replace the old ass devices/hardware that are IPv4 only (at some level -- there are plenty of situations where the end user can't spend any reasonable amount of money to replace the item because the manufacturers won't fix the problem), and it costs money to have employees spend time to get trained up in IPv6. I'd like IPv4 to die, but I've also worked at places where it would have a significant (non-internet) international impact if you suddenly shot it in the back of the head.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Dan J. Bernstein wrote about the reasons why, and it's quite enlightening. https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
  - lmm 3y ago
    No it isn't. That page sounds clever to the clueless but to anyone who actually understands that packet-switched networks won out over circuit-switched ones it's deeply stupid, to the point that I wonder if he wrote it as some kind of deep cover trolling.

Time to move to IPV6.

crims0n 3y ago

Obligatory IPv6 is an academic solution to an engineering problem.

zapdrive 3y ago
No it isn't.
- crims0n 3y ago
  Not literally no, but the spirit of the sentiment is true. Have been in some flavor of networking for the past decade, there is a reason it hasn’t been universally adopted despite being ratified 25 years ago.
  - betaby 3y ago
    We can say that IPv6 is universally adopted for mobile networks.
    - mbreese 3y ago
      But does it universally go IPv6 to IPv6 or IPv6 to an NAT64 gateway? Isn't CGNAT also popular for mobile networks?
      - betaby 3y ago
        Most of the traffic in mobile operator networks I'm aware of is IPv6 to IPv6, for very obvious reason - people watching youtube, facebook et al, and they are IPv6 enabled for over 10+ years. Of course one need to provide IPv4 reach-ability as well, details are varies from network to network, 464XLAT is being a popular one.
        ianburrell 3y ago
        The big reason mobile networks use IPv6 is that they are new and don't have the IPv4 allocations of legacy providers. They could have gone CGNAT, but IPv6 with 464XLAT is better. Mobile networks are easier to use IPv6 than home networks since there is no customer gateway to worry about and 464XLAT software is included on device.
      - ben0x539 3y ago
        It's "popular" in that it's widely deployed, but I think it's fairly unpopular in that people really don't enjoy operating it. When I worked for a high traffic website, I was told people would occasionally reach out like "hey can we just ipv6-peer with y'all so our users don't have to talk to you over our cgnat. it's putting a ton of load on the cgnat gateway".
      - sgjohnson 3y ago
        CGNAT is a set of hacks on top of another set of hacks. You can keep stacking NAT on top of NAT for near-infinite amount of IP addresses, but what you can't do is you can't multiply the number of ports. Before I switched ISPs, my home ISP was using CGNAT with no IPv6. It was trivial to completely screw up the connectivity for myself (and probably a lot of other users) by simply running a BitTorrent client with connection limit disabled. Popular? Yes. A good solution? Definitely not.
      - xnyanta 3y ago
        No one who operates a CGNAT enjoys it or wants to operate a CGNAT. I'd wager that most mobile network traffic is native IPv6 to IPv6 because all of the super high volume FAANG et al websites are operating IPv6.
WastingMyTime89 3y ago
It was developed by the IETF in a working group led by engineers from Cisco and Nokia. It’s approximately as far from an academic solution as you can get.
- rvnx 3y ago
  An engineer would have preferred to add an additional byte (255.255.255.255.255) if the issue was really about addressing. Exactly like we did with telephone numbers.
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    No. IPv6 is significantly easier to subnet. I can tell you the start and finish of 2a07:ffdd::/29 from the top of my head (it's 2a07:ffd8:: - 2a07:ffdf:ffff.....), because there's a nibble boundary every 4 bits, which makes it trivial. IPv6 has 31 nibble boundaries. IPv4 has 3. Do me a 10.15.121.75/19 from the top of your head. I would choose working with IPv6 addresses over IPv4 any time of day. Engineers added 12 additional bytes requiring the switch to a hexadecimal notation, because 255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255 would be a little bit too long.

mike_hock 3y ago

All IP addresses equal? "Colon-zero" addresses are less equal.

dpifke 3y ago
For those that don't know: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291#section-2.6.1 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291#section-2.6.1 Linux in particular, if IPv6 forwarding is enabled, will automatically add an anycast route for the 0'th subnet address. (Unless it's a /127 subnet per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6164 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6164.)

codegeek 3y ago

Haven't we saying this for years now ? Why has IPV6 adoption failed ?

teaearlgraycold 3y ago
They added features that weren't needed, and those new features break compatibility. IPv6 is the Python 3 of the network stack.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  In both cases the migration happened eventually. All my devices have and use v6, and I haven't had to touch Python 2.6 in years. Yes, there are still people stuck with v4 networks and 2.6-era codebases. These are legacy cases that are increasingly buried deep in the long tail of interoperability.
NegativeK 3y ago
Because it costs money to maintain both stacks, it costs money to replace the old ass devices/hardware that are IPv4 only (at some level -- there are plenty of situations where the end user can't spend any reasonable amount of money to replace the item because the manufacturers won't fix the problem), and it costs money to have employees spend time to get trained up in IPv6. I'd like IPv4 to die, but I've also worked at places where it would have a significant (non-internet) international impact if you suddenly shot it in the back of the head.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Dan J. Bernstein wrote about the reasons why, and it's quite enlightening. https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
- lmm 3y ago
  No it isn't. That page sounds clever to the clueless but to anyone who actually understands that packet-switched networks won out over circuit-switched ones it's deeply stupid, to the point that I wonder if he wrote it as some kind of deep cover trolling.