3 ms·

You’ll get a lot of hate for it, but I think you’re speaking the truth. IPv6 is probably one of the worst modern standards (tied C++ templates). Nobody has ever

You’ll get a lot of hate for it, but I think you’re speaking the truth. IPv6 is probably one of the worst modern standards (tied C++ templates). Nobody has ever made a convincing argument about the advantages of it over IPv4. Just another case of fools admiring complexity. PHB types love it even more, it’s filled with buzzwords like the “future” of networking.

Dwedit 3y ago
Advantage: Not out of addresses.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
  We’ve been “running out of ipv4 space” since before i got a freakin us robotics modem.
  - OsrsNeedsf2P 3y ago
    Yes, and it's a pain in the butt for people who are trying to provision servers in 90% of the world
  - IcePic 3y ago
    Well, in the 90s, you would be able to get a /24 by just filling out some paperwork. How is it today, how easy and cheap can I get a /24 now? Is it two forms and an email? The simple reason people have to start paying AWS for them is that it isn't easy or cheap for AWS to buy large ranges anymore. If it was just "fill out a form telling someone I need 4 million more IPs" then AWS would have some cheap junior technician doing that, but now they need to rake in money to cover the expenses to get IPs and customers that need v4 needs to pay for it. You can check the rate of handing out v4 ips in 2012* and see that it was never going to be sustainable. The solution to the known-in-advance problem of ipv4 running out was not to .. not hand them out and just leave internet as it looked in Jan-2011 when IANA ran out of networks to hand out. So while it may be fun to state "I heard this long long ago", it just means others had better vision than you. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion#/media/File:Rir-rate.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion#/media...
  - orangeboats 3y ago
    When we initially ran out of IPv4 addresses, the effects aren't immediately felt since there was an inertia. But nowadays the effect is more than visible (especially in my region, Asia-Pacific), with more and more ISPs putting their customers behind a CGNAT. Let me write a parody of one of the classics: First, they put cellular users behind CGNAT, which is fine because mobile phones don't host services. Then, they came for residential users on cheaper plans, which is fine because they are not powerusers and so are unlikely to host services. After that, they put all residential users behind a CGNAT. ... It is actually what I experienced throughout the last decade in Southeast Asia. Are the ISPs here doing this because they are being cheapskates? No. It's because we are genuinely running out of IPv4 resources forcing people to share them. We did not have the luxury of Western ISPs who were assigned millions of addresses, and buying the addresses is a costly endeavor nowadays with /16 IPv4 block literally costing millions today. And if you think CGNAT is good, think again: (quoting one of my previous comments) [...] you can't really build a truly-P2P network nor self-host a service on Internet when everyone is behind CGNAT. At some point, as IPv4 resources get scarcer, only corporates will have the ability to host services on the Internet, and I don't think it is in their interests to host Tor nodes, for example...
senkora 3y ago
I think this post convincingly argues that there exists a world (but not ours, due to path dependence) where IPv6 is a better design: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810 https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810
- dang 3y ago
  Related: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37116487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37116487 - Aug 2023 (306 comments) The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25568766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25568766 - Dec 2020 (131 comments) The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20167686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20167686 - June 2019 (238 comments)
- Dagger2 3y ago
  Not really, it just spends a lot of time waffling on about bus networks and mobile IPs and then makes some weird claims about the IETF that don't seem to match reality. v6 is designed the way it is precisely because it needs to run on the same networks that v4 does, and v6 is a better design than v4 in our world because our world has completely outgrown v4.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Dwedit 3y ago

Advantage: Not out of addresses.

whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
We’ve been “running out of ipv4 space” since before i got a freakin us robotics modem.
- OsrsNeedsf2P 3y ago
  Yes, and it's a pain in the butt for people who are trying to provision servers in 90% of the world
- IcePic 3y ago
  Well, in the 90s, you would be able to get a /24 by just filling out some paperwork. How is it today, how easy and cheap can I get a /24 now? Is it two forms and an email? The simple reason people have to start paying AWS for them is that it isn't easy or cheap for AWS to buy large ranges anymore. If it was just "fill out a form telling someone I need 4 million more IPs" then AWS would have some cheap junior technician doing that, but now they need to rake in money to cover the expenses to get IPs and customers that need v4 needs to pay for it. You can check the rate of handing out v4 ips in 2012* and see that it was never going to be sustainable. The solution to the known-in-advance problem of ipv4 running out was not to .. not hand them out and just leave internet as it looked in Jan-2011 when IANA ran out of networks to hand out. So while it may be fun to state "I heard this long long ago", it just means others had better vision than you. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion#/media/File:Rir-rate.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion#/media...
- orangeboats 3y ago
  When we initially ran out of IPv4 addresses, the effects aren't immediately felt since there was an inertia. But nowadays the effect is more than visible (especially in my region, Asia-Pacific), with more and more ISPs putting their customers behind a CGNAT. Let me write a parody of one of the classics: First, they put cellular users behind CGNAT, which is fine because mobile phones don't host services. Then, they came for residential users on cheaper plans, which is fine because they are not powerusers and so are unlikely to host services. After that, they put all residential users behind a CGNAT. ... It is actually what I experienced throughout the last decade in Southeast Asia. Are the ISPs here doing this because they are being cheapskates? No. It's because we are genuinely running out of IPv4 resources forcing people to share them. We did not have the luxury of Western ISPs who were assigned millions of addresses, and buying the addresses is a costly endeavor nowadays with /16 IPv4 block literally costing millions today. And if you think CGNAT is good, think again: (quoting one of my previous comments) [...] you can't really build a truly-P2P network nor self-host a service on Internet when everyone is behind CGNAT. At some point, as IPv4 resources get scarcer, only corporates will have the ability to host services on the Internet, and I don't think it is in their interests to host Tor nodes, for example...

senkora 3y ago

I think this post convincingly argues that there exists a world (but not ours, due to path dependence) where IPv6 is a better design: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810 https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810

dang 3y ago
Related: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37116487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37116487 - Aug 2023 (306 comments) The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25568766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25568766 - Dec 2020 (131 comments) The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20167686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20167686 - June 2019 (238 comments)
Dagger2 3y ago
Not really, it just spends a lot of time waffling on about bus networks and mobile IPs and then makes some weird claims about the IETF that don't seem to match reality. v6 is designed the way it is precisely because it needs to run on the same networks that v4 does, and v6 is a better design than v4 in our world because our world has completely outgrown v4.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]