12 ms·

Discord hardcodes ipv4 addresses and will not work for webrtc calls in DNS64 setup. In 2023 I consider it an insult to the internet as a whole.

by kuon 3y ago

giancarlostoro 3y ago
I'm of the opinion that IPv6 is old enough that the fact we have not hopped to it yet means its not happening anytime soon. I wanted it back in 2008 when I first learned about it, and I know its older than that (90s iirc) so its either going to come one day "abruptly" by force and break half the internet, or people will do hacks to maintain IPv4 as is. I think the only way IPv6 will ever become mainstream is if either the EU or US Congress pass a bill making it the preferred IP standard.
- kuon 3y ago
  Yeah, we need more incentive. Ipv6 is harder to implement yes, it is true, there is no point in denying this and arguing it solves tons of problem (it does). Most companies have ipv4 experience and it's just simpler. There must be some political pressure to make it move. But "hopefully" the economical pressure is starting to build up, a lot of providers are cheaper in ipv6 only configuration. Still, for a company like discord, not even using host names to allow DNS64 is really sad.
  - photonbeam 3y ago
    Plenty of big sites have no AAAA record even
    - pavel_odintsov 3y ago
      It can be easily sorted out with DNS64 and NAT64: https://pavel.network/building-gateway-to-access-legacy-ipv4-internet-from-ipv6-only-work-laptop/ https://pavel.network/building-gateway-to-access-legacy-ipv4...
      - photonbeam 3y ago
        I meant it more as damning the current level of commitment from big corps who could probably afford to dual stack
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    If ipv4 is just simpler and people prefer it like you say, that's a sign that v6 isn't a good option for replacement.
    - Macha 3y ago
      Some of this is unavoidable while fixing the scaling problems of IPv4. Longer addresses are never going to be preferable for users over shorter addresses, but addresses are necessarily going to be longer than IPv4 if it's going to support more devices.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        The existing users that already have short addresses should be able to keep them (ignoring the trailing 0s), and even the newer longer ones don't need to be 128 bits.
        Macha 3y ago
        ::ffff:<IPv4 address> is a perfectly valid V6 address. The problem is not the user facing representation but all the software and hardware implementations, including in middleboxes in between client and server. 128 is no different to 33 bits, or 32 bits plus extension header in that regard.
        hot_gril 3y ago
        It's valid but not routable in practice. The Internet collectively didn't choose to map existing IPv4 addresses into v6 or keep the routing unified, that's the problem. It should've been that 1.1.1.1 on v4 now owns 1.1.1.1/32 on v6, so going all-v6 doesn't mean cutting yourself off from v4 hosts. Once v6 was well-adopted, they could start using the longer addresses. Instead, we got two totally separate networks.
        Macha 3y ago
        This is an "IPv6" network that does not allow for more users. The IPv4 network space is already depleted. This is why mobile ISPs, Indian ISPs etc. are all dual stack with CGNAT for IPv4. Perhaps you meant to suggest that they should own 1.1.1.1::/64 or 1.1.1.1/128 (or 1:1:1:1::/64)? Even if it's the latter case, both the actual ::ffff:1.2.3.4 (or it's predecessor ::1.2.3.4) have the problem that some middle box receives a packet for 1.1.1.1::abcd:1234, doesn't understand the header the abcd:1234 portion is encoded in, throws it away, and the router at 1.1.1.1 receives a packet which is destined for some unknown device behind the router with no info for how to get the packet to that device.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    One thing that might help is government regulation that any ISP using CGNAT must offer IPv6. Customers should get public IP address, single IPv4 or /64 IPv6. Another would be that government customers need to have IPv6-enabled sites. This could get a lot of companies to add IPv6 hosting.
    - Macha 3y ago
      > One thing that might help is government regulation that any ISP using CGNAT must offer IPv6. Customers should get public IP address, single IPv4 or /64 IPv6. My understanding is they largely do. It's the ISPs that have enough IPv4 addresses that don't feel a need to upgrade, and the website operators who $3/server/month for an IPv4 address is a rounding error.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  When they need to solve the address space crisis, they can make a "v4.1" that's just v4 but with an expanded address space. Existing addresses and decimal format stay; NAT DNS DHCP ARP etc stay mostly the same aside from supporting longer addresses. Cloudflare DNS is still 1.1.1.1, my private ip is 192.168.1.2, public 71.177.17.171, some new ISP hands out 11.127.13.121.143.356 when they run out of shorter addresses, life moves on. I know v6 supports NAT, but it was basically designed to remove it with the whole random addressing scheme, and that isn't necessary for solving this problem (idk if things were different in the 1990s).
  - icedchai 3y ago
    You know this can't work without having the same issues as IPv6, right? Take a look at the IP headers.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      They'd have to expand the header in a backwards-incompatible way, yes. IPv6's issues don't all stem from that. Changing all the existing addresses, adding new special kinds of addrs, trying to ditch NAT, and maybe even changing the human-readable format of addrs created most of this resistance. Asking someone to go v6 is asking for a whole network redesign, with an end result that isn't exactly simpler. Swap in v4.1-compatible stuff and you'd be done. Sending to short address uses v4, sending to long uses v4.1.
      - icedchai 3y ago
        If you expand the header in a backwards-incompatible way, you have to upgrade all the routers and endpoints. You'd need to extend other protocols, like BGP and OSPF, to even route your "v4.1" prefixes. You'd have the exact same dual stack issues as you do with v6. Why bother? IPv6 is available today and has been here for over 20 years. The truth is it is actually simpler to deploy than v4. For example, the address format makes it easier to understand subnetting (because it's hex.) NAT is an abomination and we should be glad to see it go: end-to-end connectivity is how the internet is supposed to work. I remember the old days (the 90's) where we all had public IP addresses on our desktops. VPNs are much simpler: there's no potential for overlapping RFC-1918 addresses because v6 is globally unique. I could go on.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  40-45% of Google traffic uses IPv6. If you are in the US, your mobile traffic is probably IPv6. At home, your ISP likely supports IPv6, you can get by enabling on router or upgrading router. The problem areas are with hosting and corporate networks. The Google numbers are smaller during the week as people use IPv4-only corporate networks.
- heartjudytenuta 3y ago
  China has mandated moving to single-stack IPv6 by the end of the decade. It is not well publicized. It turns out when you have a government that can tell you "move to IPv6 or we'll have your legs broken and your family thrown in prison" it's a bit easier to get things moving.
  - anticensor 3y ago
    More like "move to IPv6 or you will be disconnected from the internet completely".
VoodooJuJu 3y ago
IPv6 is an insult.
- keep_reading 3y ago
  - we never got the integrated IPSEC - enough addresses for everyone on the planet, but we can't freely give out permanent static allocations to everyone because it would explode the routing tables - so we never got our permanent roaming addresses we were promised - NAT66 exists - IPv6 was (still is?) a moving target for implementors It's worse than an insult
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    "It only has some of the benefits over IPv4" is not worse than an insult. Best practices changing applies to IPv4 too. NAT exists but you don't need it and even if you do use it you don't have to track connections.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  IPv6 to me is an example of "not letting a good crisis go to waste." The real problem was running out of addresses, but the solution got lots of less necessary changes bundled into it, rather than just adding more address space.
johnklos 3y ago
Discord not running in a browser on a system that can ONLY do 3 billion instructions a second is an insult to the Internet.
zajio1am 3y ago
DNS64 is horrible back, that is way reasonable IPv6-only setups use 464XLAT.

Discord hardcodes ipv4 addresses and will not work for webrtc calls in DNS64 setup. In 2023 I consider it an insult to the internet as a whole.

by kuon 3y ago

Discord hardcodes ipv4 addresses and will not work for webrtc calls in DNS64 setup. In 2023 I consider it an insult to the internet as a whole.

giancarlostoro 3y ago

I'm of the opinion that IPv6 is old enough that the fact we have not hopped to it yet means its not happening anytime soon. I wanted it back in 2008 when I first learned about it, and I know its older than that (90s iirc) so its either going to come one day "abruptly" by force and break half the internet, or people will do hacks to maintain IPv4 as is. I think the only way IPv6 will ever become mainstream is if either the EU or US Congress pass a bill making it the preferred IP standard.

kuon 3y ago
Yeah, we need more incentive. Ipv6 is harder to implement yes, it is true, there is no point in denying this and arguing it solves tons of problem (it does). Most companies have ipv4 experience and it's just simpler. There must be some political pressure to make it move. But "hopefully" the economical pressure is starting to build up, a lot of providers are cheaper in ipv6 only configuration. Still, for a company like discord, not even using host names to allow DNS64 is really sad.
- photonbeam 3y ago
  Plenty of big sites have no AAAA record even
  - pavel_odintsov 3y ago
    It can be easily sorted out with DNS64 and NAT64: https://pavel.network/building-gateway-to-access-legacy-ipv4-internet-from-ipv6-only-work-laptop/ https://pavel.network/building-gateway-to-access-legacy-ipv4...
    - photonbeam 3y ago
      I meant it more as damning the current level of commitment from big corps who could probably afford to dual stack
- hot_gril 3y ago
  If ipv4 is just simpler and people prefer it like you say, that's a sign that v6 isn't a good option for replacement.
  - Macha 3y ago
    Some of this is unavoidable while fixing the scaling problems of IPv4. Longer addresses are never going to be preferable for users over shorter addresses, but addresses are necessarily going to be longer than IPv4 if it's going to support more devices.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      The existing users that already have short addresses should be able to keep them (ignoring the trailing 0s), and even the newer longer ones don't need to be 128 bits.
      - Macha 3y ago
        ::ffff:<IPv4 address> is a perfectly valid V6 address. The problem is not the user facing representation but all the software and hardware implementations, including in middleboxes in between client and server. 128 is no different to 33 bits, or 32 bits plus extension header in that regard.
        hot_gril 3y ago
        It's valid but not routable in practice. The Internet collectively didn't choose to map existing IPv4 addresses into v6 or keep the routing unified, that's the problem. It should've been that 1.1.1.1 on v4 now owns 1.1.1.1/32 on v6, so going all-v6 doesn't mean cutting yourself off from v4 hosts. Once v6 was well-adopted, they could start using the longer addresses. Instead, we got two totally separate networks.
        Macha 3y ago
        This is an "IPv6" network that does not allow for more users. The IPv4 network space is already depleted. This is why mobile ISPs, Indian ISPs etc. are all dual stack with CGNAT for IPv4. Perhaps you meant to suggest that they should own 1.1.1.1::/64 or 1.1.1.1/128 (or 1:1:1:1::/64)? Even if it's the latter case, both the actual ::ffff:1.2.3.4 (or it's predecessor ::1.2.3.4) have the problem that some middle box receives a packet for 1.1.1.1::abcd:1234, doesn't understand the header the abcd:1234 portion is encoded in, throws it away, and the router at 1.1.1.1 receives a packet which is destined for some unknown device behind the router with no info for how to get the packet to that device.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  One thing that might help is government regulation that any ISP using CGNAT must offer IPv6. Customers should get public IP address, single IPv4 or /64 IPv6. Another would be that government customers need to have IPv6-enabled sites. This could get a lot of companies to add IPv6 hosting.
  - Macha 3y ago
    > One thing that might help is government regulation that any ISP using CGNAT must offer IPv6. Customers should get public IP address, single IPv4 or /64 IPv6. My understanding is they largely do. It's the ISPs that have enough IPv4 addresses that don't feel a need to upgrade, and the website operators who $3/server/month for an IPv4 address is a rounding error.
hot_gril 3y ago
When they need to solve the address space crisis, they can make a "v4.1" that's just v4 but with an expanded address space. Existing addresses and decimal format stay; NAT DNS DHCP ARP etc stay mostly the same aside from supporting longer addresses. Cloudflare DNS is still 1.1.1.1, my private ip is 192.168.1.2, public 71.177.17.171, some new ISP hands out 11.127.13.121.143.356 when they run out of shorter addresses, life moves on. I know v6 supports NAT, but it was basically designed to remove it with the whole random addressing scheme, and that isn't necessary for solving this problem (idk if things were different in the 1990s).
- icedchai 3y ago
  You know this can't work without having the same issues as IPv6, right? Take a look at the IP headers.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    They'd have to expand the header in a backwards-incompatible way, yes. IPv6's issues don't all stem from that. Changing all the existing addresses, adding new special kinds of addrs, trying to ditch NAT, and maybe even changing the human-readable format of addrs created most of this resistance. Asking someone to go v6 is asking for a whole network redesign, with an end result that isn't exactly simpler. Swap in v4.1-compatible stuff and you'd be done. Sending to short address uses v4, sending to long uses v4.1.
    - icedchai 3y ago
      If you expand the header in a backwards-incompatible way, you have to upgrade all the routers and endpoints. You'd need to extend other protocols, like BGP and OSPF, to even route your "v4.1" prefixes. You'd have the exact same dual stack issues as you do with v6. Why bother? IPv6 is available today and has been here for over 20 years. The truth is it is actually simpler to deploy than v4. For example, the address format makes it easier to understand subnetting (because it's hex.) NAT is an abomination and we should be glad to see it go: end-to-end connectivity is how the internet is supposed to work. I remember the old days (the 90's) where we all had public IP addresses on our desktops. VPNs are much simpler: there's no potential for overlapping RFC-1918 addresses because v6 is globally unique. I could go on.
ianburrell 3y ago
40-45% of Google traffic uses IPv6. If you are in the US, your mobile traffic is probably IPv6. At home, your ISP likely supports IPv6, you can get by enabling on router or upgrading router. The problem areas are with hosting and corporate networks. The Google numbers are smaller during the week as people use IPv4-only corporate networks.
heartjudytenuta 3y ago
China has mandated moving to single-stack IPv6 by the end of the decade. It is not well publicized. It turns out when you have a government that can tell you "move to IPv6 or we'll have your legs broken and your family thrown in prison" it's a bit easier to get things moving.
- anticensor 3y ago
  More like "move to IPv6 or you will be disconnected from the internet completely".

VoodooJuJu 3y ago

IPv6 is an insult.

keep_reading 3y ago
- we never got the integrated IPSEC - enough addresses for everyone on the planet, but we can't freely give out permanent static allocations to everyone because it would explode the routing tables - so we never got our permanent roaming addresses we were promised - NAT66 exists - IPv6 was (still is?) a moving target for implementors It's worse than an insult
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  "It only has some of the benefits over IPv4" is not worse than an insult. Best practices changing applies to IPv4 too. NAT exists but you don't need it and even if you do use it you don't have to track connections.
hot_gril 3y ago
IPv6 to me is an example of "not letting a good crisis go to waste." The real problem was running out of addresses, but the solution got lots of less necessary changes bundled into it, rather than just adding more address space.

johnklos 3y ago

Discord not running in a browser on a system that can ONLY do 3 billion instructions a second is an insult to the Internet.

zajio1am 3y ago

DNS64 is horrible back, that is way reasonable IPv6-only setups use 464XLAT.