3 ms·

Your comment comes grom a place If ignorance. > We don't _want_ end-to-end connectivity. YOU dont want that. The wish to not have all devices connected to th

by 7bit 2y ago

Your comment comes grom a place If ignorance. > We don't _want_ end-to-end connectivity. YOU dont want that. The wish to not have all devices connected to the Internet does not defeat the need of having a protocol that allows that. NAT is merely a workaround that introduced a lot of technical debt because we don't have enought IPv4 addresses. And having IPv6 does not mean that you must connect everything to the internet. IPv6 Is good and absolutely necessary. NAT is really expensive and creates a lot of problems in large networks. Having the possibility to just hand out routsble addresses solves a lot of problems.

ninkendo 2y ago
I'm starting to notice a pattern in these threads in HN every time IPv6 comes up. It's kinda like the vim/emacs holy war back in the day. I also see it in threads about Rust vs C++. There's a kind of holy war, where people pick sides, and if you're "team IPv6", you look for any post that kinda vaguely smells like it defends IPv4, call them ignorant, and respond with the typical slew of reasons why IPv6 is better, NAT is a hack, you can still firewall with IPv6, etc. If you're "team IPv4" you look for the IPv6 posts and talk about how NAT is useful, IPv6 should have been less complicated, etc etc. It's really tiresome. Personally, I'm not on either "team". These things I believe: - We need more addresses - IPv6 is as good a solution as any, as no solution was going to be backwards compatible. - We should get on with it and migrate to IPv6 as soon as possible. What's the hold up? I'm sick of running dual stack. - But don't throw away NAT, please. I want my internal addresses to be stable and if possible, static and memorizable (An fd00::1 ULA [0] is even easier to remember than 192.168.1.1! And it won't change when my ISP suddenly hands me a new prefix.) - But CGNAT is The Devil. Don't conflate my desire for using NAT at my house for some desire to be behind CGNAT. Again, we should get on IPv6 ASAP to banish CGNAT back to hell. - Oh and don't pretend that IPv6 would have led to a more decentralized internet. A client/server model is inevitable for so many reasons, and true peer-to-peer where customers just communicate directly with one another is not a realistic goal, even with IPv6. Even with PMP/PCP. Even with DDNS. You just can't design software around the idea that "everyone's router is perfectly configured." [0] No, I don't actually use fd00::/64 as my ULA prefix, I actually put my cellphone number in there :-P. The point being it's as memorizable as you want it to be.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- yyyk 2y ago
  >We need more addresses True. >IPv6 is as good a solution as any... There aren't any other practical solutions. Debatable if it was the best solution but it is what it is. >We should get on with it and migrate to IPv6 as soon as possible Most LANs will run IPv4 forever. IPv6 offers nothing to LANs larger than home labs (when SLAAC is not enough) but smaller than huge companies (when there are more than enough addresses even in IPv4. 240/4 is for every practical purpose private). The community's hostility to NAT/NPT means LAN admins will get it de facto by running another stack internally. >I want my internal addresses to be stable and if possible, static and memorizable. Right. But ULAs have ridiculous routing rules. It would take at least a decade for fixes to be deployed everywhere. >Don't conflate my desire for using NAT at my house for some desire to be behind CGNAT. Right. But most users don't care. > A client/server model is inevitable for so many reasons. Right.
  - ninkendo 2y ago
    > Right. But ULAs have ridiculous routing rules Could you elaborate? I’m able to run ULA-only just fine, with one line in my pf.conf to route 1:1 to my GUA prefix. The NAT is stateless. Maybe you’re referring to the fact that typical OS’s will prefer to use IPv4 over a ULA if both are available? I’ve noticed that, and indeed it’s unfortunate.
    - yyyk 2y ago
      >typical OS’s will prefer to use IPv4 over a ULA if both are available? Yep. There's an RFC for this. I guess it would take a decade to be everywhere. The Global > Local rule is also unfortunate in some configurations*, but that's more of a result of the end-to-end idea and software not realizing a device can have more than one address... * One example from this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43070290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43070290

by 7bit 2y ago

ninkendo 2y ago

I'm starting to notice a pattern in these threads in HN every time IPv6 comes up. It's kinda like the vim/emacs holy war back in the day. I also see it in threads about Rust vs C++. There's a kind of holy war, where people pick sides, and if you're "team IPv6", you look for any post that kinda vaguely smells like it defends IPv4, call them ignorant, and respond with the typical slew of reasons why IPv6 is better, NAT is a hack, you can still firewall with IPv6, etc. If you're "team IPv4" you look for the IPv6 posts and talk about how NAT is useful, IPv6 should have been less complicated, etc etc. It's really tiresome. Personally, I'm not on either "team". These things I believe: - We need more addresses - IPv6 is as good a solution as any, as no solution was going to be backwards compatible. - We should get on with it and migrate to IPv6 as soon as possible. What's the hold up? I'm sick of running dual stack. - But don't throw away NAT, please. I want my internal addresses to be stable and if possible, static and memorizable (An fd00::1 ULA [0] is even easier to remember than 192.168.1.1! And it won't change when my ISP suddenly hands me a new prefix.) - But CGNAT is The Devil. Don't conflate my desire for using NAT at my house for some desire to be behind CGNAT. Again, we should get on IPv6 ASAP to banish CGNAT back to hell. - Oh and don't pretend that IPv6 would have led to a more decentralized internet. A client/server model is inevitable for so many reasons, and true peer-to-peer where customers just communicate directly with one another is not a realistic goal, even with IPv6. Even with PMP/PCP. Even with DDNS. You just can't design software around the idea that "everyone's router is perfectly configured." [0] No, I don't actually use fd00::/64 as my ULA prefix, I actually put my cellphone number in there :-P. The point being it's as memorizable as you want it to be.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
yyyk 2y ago
>We need more addresses True. >IPv6 is as good a solution as any... There aren't any other practical solutions. Debatable if it was the best solution but it is what it is. >We should get on with it and migrate to IPv6 as soon as possible Most LANs will run IPv4 forever. IPv6 offers nothing to LANs larger than home labs (when SLAAC is not enough) but smaller than huge companies (when there are more than enough addresses even in IPv4. 240/4 is for every practical purpose private). The community's hostility to NAT/NPT means LAN admins will get it de facto by running another stack internally. >I want my internal addresses to be stable and if possible, static and memorizable. Right. But ULAs have ridiculous routing rules. It would take at least a decade for fixes to be deployed everywhere. >Don't conflate my desire for using NAT at my house for some desire to be behind CGNAT. Right. But most users don't care. > A client/server model is inevitable for so many reasons. Right.
- ninkendo 2y ago
  > Right. But ULAs have ridiculous routing rules Could you elaborate? I’m able to run ULA-only just fine, with one line in my pf.conf to route 1:1 to my GUA prefix. The NAT is stateless. Maybe you’re referring to the fact that typical OS’s will prefer to use IPv4 over a ULA if both are available? I’ve noticed that, and indeed it’s unfortunate.
  - yyyk 2y ago
    >typical OS’s will prefer to use IPv4 over a ULA if both are available? Yep. There's an RFC for this. I guess it would take a decade to be everywhere. The Global > Local rule is also unfortunate in some configurations*, but that's more of a result of the end-to-end idea and software not realizing a device can have more than one address... * One example from this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43070290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43070290