5 ms·

The absurd lengths this industry goes to, only to avoid the switch to IPv6. Wish the FCC would step in with a mandate or something, it’s just long overdue.

by mikl 2y ago

xacky 2y ago
Networking software and routers without ipv6 should be considered a security issue at this point and should have CVEs assigned against them. It's amazing how we deprecated unencrypted http across the internet but still use the equivalent for ip addresses.
- john01dav 2y ago
  Ipv4 is deeply flawed and needs to be replaced, but how is it insecure? CVEs are specifically for security issues.
- lagniappe 2y ago
  This is NOT how the CVE system is used.
- DaSHacka 2y ago
  > It's amazing how we deprecated unencrypted http across the internet but still use the equivalent for ip addresses. This makes no sense, http is flawed because its unencrypted and allows MITMing information. IPv4 is flawed merely because it doesn't have enough addresses. How are these two comparable? Your proposed "solution" is overkill and is completely ridiculous.
  - itchyouch 2y ago
    It’s not a logical argument, but if we only take the part about the transition to https, the difference was that https and http coexisted with mostly full compatibility to go between the 2 for its whole life. And it lives at layer 4. A more cogent argument is that IPv4 and IPv6 have not fully coexisted like http/https, where you can pull the ipv4 rug out and every packet has an ipv6 path like http to https did. Also more profoundly, https conversion had the benefit of every operator being able to transition on their own time frame. And people can still opt to use http if they so choose. IP not having that luxury is a profound problem.
    - simoncion 2y ago
      > ...https conversion had the benefit of every operator being able to transition on their own time frame. ... IP not having that luxury is a profound problem. This I don't get. I expect that Google will be far more likely to make it extremely difficult (or perhaps impossible) to use Chrome to visit non-TLS-wrapped HTTP sites on the Internet in the next five years than the operators of the various networks that make up the Internet are to just shut off IPv4 on their network. I expect IPv4 will not be shut off within the lifetime of anyone posting on this forum today... and why would it be? Once just about everyone has well-functioning IPv6 access, release a recommendation to ISPs that unless a customer has an even vaguely-reasonable need for a globally-routable IPv4 address, that ISPs substantially reduce their IPv4 usage by providing IPv4 service to their customers through some CGNAT. This would ensure that the few remaining hosts with IPv4-only service will remain reachable, that any customers who can bother to write a letter to their ISP asking for a globally-routable IPv4 address can get one, and a ton of IPv4 space gets opened up for whatever we might need to do with it in the future... just in case.
- fullspectrumdev 2y ago
  Ah yes, more abuse of the CVE system. Real Linux foundation vibes off this.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  IPv4 is exactly as secure as IPv6.
- xacky 2y ago
  So surprised that hacker news is stuck in ipv4 land. Even if you disagree with the method, I do not consider a device not capable of IPv6 to be using the real internet anymore. It's the same with the housing market where people would rather speculate on IPV4 houses instead of building plentiful IPv6 apartments.
School-Cotton 2y ago
The industry is switching to IPv6, just slowly. Google's report of the fraction of users accessing its services on IPv6 steadily rises by a few percent a year. Right now it's at about 45%, so it'll be the majority in about two years.
- john01dav 2y ago
  Such a mandate would still be useful. Even of 80% of users can view things on ipv6, very few people will sacrafice the 20%. I'd like to see rules that force ipv6 support, and then to prevent idiot network admins from disabling ipv6 locally because they're too lazy to learn how it works, make some websites v6 only. Start with essential government websites and move on to laws forcing more and more private websites to be v6 only to force people to maintain its functionality in their networks. See: https://konecipv4.cz/en/ https://konecipv4.cz/en/ The market has been given its chance to move for DECADES and we're not NEARLY at the approximately 100% deployment that we need. It's time that we fix this mess.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  Here's Google's graph: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Adoption rate is currently increasing roughly linearly at a rate of about 5 percentage points every 12-18 months. Also note that there is a clear weekday/weekend pattern, with weekdays about 3-4 percentage points lower than weekends.
  - rnhmjoj 2y ago
    I wonder what happened in March.
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      Probably their data collection was just broken for whatever reason.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    It means 100% adoption will be in 2040 using linear regression model.
myself248 2y ago
Just drop all ipv4 traffic for one minute at noon UTC every day. Next month, extend it to two minutes. The stragglers will switch.
- mike_d 2y ago
  This is how you end up with a nationwide ban on IPv6. When traffic lights start flashing red, flow control valves in the water distribution system fail safe closed, and ATMs don't work people will quickly discover the correlation with your silly plan.
  - myself248 2y ago
    If any of those things happen because of a one-minute interruption in internet connectivity, the people who implemented them that way should be pilloried. What an absurd strawman.
kmeisthax 2y ago
American here, I've had IPv6 on literally every device I've had for almost a decade now. Every mobile provider has been v6 since LTE. Comcast migrated to v6 over a decade ago because they exhausted 10.0.0.0/8 in their control plane network (they have a lot of cable modems). And I'm on Google Fiber now which is all v6. There's probably a few other ISPs that need a good kick to the groin in the US, but the general feeling I get here is that the real stragglers in v6 deployment are other countries. Indeed, looking at Google's IPv6 map[0] it's all countries in Africa and the Middle East that have the worst v6 adoption. It's places where there isn't enough demand for addressing to make CGNAT unviable and IPv6 necessary. [0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...
marcthe12 2y ago
USA is has to much legacy interim to do this. I think India has the best leverage having being one the highest IPv6 adoption and shear number of internet users, so it easier get all main blockers of IPv6 only internet usuable.
kbolino 2y ago
The government should start by rolling out IPv6 for its own stuff before telling others what to do. I say this because they need to learn how to do it too/first.

The absurd lengths this industry goes to, only to avoid the switch to IPv6. Wish the FCC would step in with a mandate or something, it’s just long overdue.

by mikl 2y ago

The absurd lengths this industry goes to, only to avoid the switch to IPv6. Wish the FCC would step in with a mandate or something, it’s just long overdue.

xacky 2y ago

Networking software and routers without ipv6 should be considered a security issue at this point and should have CVEs assigned against them. It's amazing how we deprecated unencrypted http across the internet but still use the equivalent for ip addresses.

john01dav 2y ago
Ipv4 is deeply flawed and needs to be replaced, but how is it insecure? CVEs are specifically for security issues.
lagniappe 2y ago
This is NOT how the CVE system is used.
DaSHacka 2y ago
> It's amazing how we deprecated unencrypted http across the internet but still use the equivalent for ip addresses. This makes no sense, http is flawed because its unencrypted and allows MITMing information. IPv4 is flawed merely because it doesn't have enough addresses. How are these two comparable? Your proposed "solution" is overkill and is completely ridiculous.
- itchyouch 2y ago
  It’s not a logical argument, but if we only take the part about the transition to https, the difference was that https and http coexisted with mostly full compatibility to go between the 2 for its whole life. And it lives at layer 4. A more cogent argument is that IPv4 and IPv6 have not fully coexisted like http/https, where you can pull the ipv4 rug out and every packet has an ipv6 path like http to https did. Also more profoundly, https conversion had the benefit of every operator being able to transition on their own time frame. And people can still opt to use http if they so choose. IP not having that luxury is a profound problem.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > ...https conversion had the benefit of every operator being able to transition on their own time frame. ... IP not having that luxury is a profound problem. This I don't get. I expect that Google will be far more likely to make it extremely difficult (or perhaps impossible) to use Chrome to visit non-TLS-wrapped HTTP sites on the Internet in the next five years than the operators of the various networks that make up the Internet are to just shut off IPv4 on their network. I expect IPv4 will not be shut off within the lifetime of anyone posting on this forum today... and why would it be? Once just about everyone has well-functioning IPv6 access, release a recommendation to ISPs that unless a customer has an even vaguely-reasonable need for a globally-routable IPv4 address, that ISPs substantially reduce their IPv4 usage by providing IPv4 service to their customers through some CGNAT. This would ensure that the few remaining hosts with IPv4-only service will remain reachable, that any customers who can bother to write a letter to their ISP asking for a globally-routable IPv4 address can get one, and a ton of IPv4 space gets opened up for whatever we might need to do with it in the future... just in case.
fullspectrumdev 2y ago
Ah yes, more abuse of the CVE system. Real Linux foundation vibes off this.
tsimionescu 2y ago
IPv4 is exactly as secure as IPv6.
xacky 2y ago
So surprised that hacker news is stuck in ipv4 land. Even if you disagree with the method, I do not consider a device not capable of IPv6 to be using the real internet anymore. It's the same with the housing market where people would rather speculate on IPV4 houses instead of building plentiful IPv6 apartments.

School-Cotton 2y ago

The industry is switching to IPv6, just slowly. Google's report of the fraction of users accessing its services on IPv6 steadily rises by a few percent a year. Right now it's at about 45%, so it'll be the majority in about two years.

john01dav 2y ago
Such a mandate would still be useful. Even of 80% of users can view things on ipv6, very few people will sacrafice the 20%. I'd like to see rules that force ipv6 support, and then to prevent idiot network admins from disabling ipv6 locally because they're too lazy to learn how it works, make some websites v6 only. Start with essential government websites and move on to laws forcing more and more private websites to be v6 only to force people to maintain its functionality in their networks. See: https://konecipv4.cz/en/ https://konecipv4.cz/en/ The market has been given its chance to move for DECADES and we're not NEARLY at the approximately 100% deployment that we need. It's time that we fix this mess.
jcranmer 2y ago
Here's Google's graph: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Adoption rate is currently increasing roughly linearly at a rate of about 5 percentage points every 12-18 months. Also note that there is a clear weekday/weekend pattern, with weekdays about 3-4 percentage points lower than weekends.
- rnhmjoj 2y ago
  I wonder what happened in March.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    Probably their data collection was just broken for whatever reason.
- rvnx 2y ago
  It means 100% adoption will be in 2040 using linear regression model.

myself248 2y ago

Just drop all ipv4 traffic for one minute at noon UTC every day. Next month, extend it to two minutes. The stragglers will switch.

mike_d 2y ago
This is how you end up with a nationwide ban on IPv6. When traffic lights start flashing red, flow control valves in the water distribution system fail safe closed, and ATMs don't work people will quickly discover the correlation with your silly plan.
- myself248 2y ago
  If any of those things happen because of a one-minute interruption in internet connectivity, the people who implemented them that way should be pilloried. What an absurd strawman.

kmeisthax 2y ago

American here, I've had IPv6 on literally every device I've had for almost a decade now. Every mobile provider has been v6 since LTE. Comcast migrated to v6 over a decade ago because they exhausted 10.0.0.0/8 in their control plane network (they have a lot of cable modems). And I'm on Google Fiber now which is all v6. There's probably a few other ISPs that need a good kick to the groin in the US, but the general feeling I get here is that the real stragglers in v6 deployment are other countries. Indeed, looking at Google's IPv6 map[0] it's all countries in Africa and the Middle East that have the worst v6 adoption. It's places where there isn't enough demand for addressing to make CGNAT unviable and IPv6 necessary. [0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

marcthe12 2y ago

USA is has to much legacy interim to do this. I think India has the best leverage having being one the highest IPv6 adoption and shear number of internet users, so it easier get all main blockers of IPv6 only internet usuable.

kbolino 2y ago

The government should start by rolling out IPv6 for its own stuff before telling others what to do. I say this because they need to learn how to do it too/first.