4 ms·

Weird this does not make use of IPv6. I'd thought this was a given if you have tens of thousands of nodes.

by mkesper 2y ago

8organicbits 2y ago
10.0.0.0/16 supports 64k hosts, so it seems it would fit in IPv4.
- anderbubble 2y ago
  That's the thing: people don't put their HPC clusters on the public Internet; so an internal IPv4 network just keeps being fine.
  - ale42 2y ago
    True, but on the other hand it might be that all private use blocks are already in use (10.0.0.0/8 is totally in use in our internal LAN), so if I want the nodes to reach those private IPs, I can't assign the same block. And we do have services on IPv6.
wmf 2y ago
It's from 2001 when IPv6 didn't really exist. I love IPv6 but it's basically crackpot retrocomputing tech at this point.
- generalizations 2y ago
  Can't decide if the retrocomputing you mean is the warewulf or the ipv6.
  - wmf 2y ago
    IPv6 is retrocomputing. I don't know much about Warewulf.
    - generalizations 2y ago
      Huh. Did not realize we'd given up on that. Did the industry just settle on IPv4 after all?
      - mcpherrinm 2y ago
        Really depends on who you ask. You still need v4 to be "globally reachable", but v6 is optional. AWS seems to finally be feeling the pinch of IPv4 exhaustion and is pushing v6 support everywhere now, and starting to charge for v4. Mobile networks already have, and many are natively IPv6, with NAT64/464XLAT or other tech for bridging to v4. Apple's App store requires apps to support IPv6-only networks. CDNs and clouds etc mean that websites don't even really need to worry about their own IP allocation, and just let their provider figure out exposing things worldwide.
        joshstrange 2y ago
        > Apple's App store requires apps to support IPv6-only networks. I read that and thought "huh, is that recent?" and found posts that were 9 years old about it. I guess apps just have to work on an IPv6-only network but I'm honestly surprised my apps do. I don't test in IPv6, my home network has it disabled, most of my servers don't have anything for IPv6 that I know of. Odd.
        ianburrell 2y ago
        If you use the official network API, don't go out of way to use the old one, any app should support IPv6.
        Arnavion 2y ago
        As long as the the servers they talk to have v6 addresses. Or does Apple implement some DNS64+NAT64 / 464XLAT setup transparently in its OSes too?
        2y ago
anderbubble 2y ago
We're always looking towards IPv6 support! And you _can_ do it today, with a little bit of work. But it's been difficult to prioritize in the main project when so few of our users (read: maybe one) have expressed interest.
- withinboredom 2y ago
  > when so few of our users existing users, I suppose. New users are looking for exactly this feature and will walk away. So, you can now count it up to 3. IPv4 has gotten quite expensive. A newer company I'm working with doesn't even have IPv4 access past the edge. There is just a little proxy that handles IPv4 translation on the edge; it barely gets any traffic.

Weird this does not make use of IPv6. I'd thought this was a given if you have tens of thousands of nodes.

8organicbits 2y ago

10.0.0.0/16 supports 64k hosts, so it seems it would fit in IPv4.

anderbubble 2y ago
That's the thing: people don't put their HPC clusters on the public Internet; so an internal IPv4 network just keeps being fine.
- ale42 2y ago
  True, but on the other hand it might be that all private use blocks are already in use (10.0.0.0/8 is totally in use in our internal LAN), so if I want the nodes to reach those private IPs, I can't assign the same block. And we do have services on IPv6.

wmf 2y ago

It's from 2001 when IPv6 didn't really exist. I love IPv6 but it's basically crackpot retrocomputing tech at this point.

generalizations 2y ago
Can't decide if the retrocomputing you mean is the warewulf or the ipv6.
- wmf 2y ago
  IPv6 is retrocomputing. I don't know much about Warewulf.
  - generalizations 2y ago
    Huh. Did not realize we'd given up on that. Did the industry just settle on IPv4 after all?
    - mcpherrinm 2y ago
      Really depends on who you ask. You still need v4 to be "globally reachable", but v6 is optional. AWS seems to finally be feeling the pinch of IPv4 exhaustion and is pushing v6 support everywhere now, and starting to charge for v4. Mobile networks already have, and many are natively IPv6, with NAT64/464XLAT or other tech for bridging to v4. Apple's App store requires apps to support IPv6-only networks. CDNs and clouds etc mean that websites don't even really need to worry about their own IP allocation, and just let their provider figure out exposing things worldwide.
      - joshstrange 2y ago
        > Apple's App store requires apps to support IPv6-only networks. I read that and thought "huh, is that recent?" and found posts that were 9 years old about it. I guess apps just have to work on an IPv6-only network but I'm honestly surprised my apps do. I don't test in IPv6, my home network has it disabled, most of my servers don't have anything for IPv6 that I know of. Odd.
        ianburrell 2y ago
        If you use the official network API, don't go out of way to use the old one, any app should support IPv6.
        Arnavion 2y ago
        As long as the the servers they talk to have v6 addresses. Or does Apple implement some DNS64+NAT64 / 464XLAT setup transparently in its OSes too?
        2y ago

anderbubble 2y ago

We're always looking towards IPv6 support! And you _can_ do it today, with a little bit of work. But it's been difficult to prioritize in the main project when so few of our users (read: maybe one) have expressed interest.

withinboredom 2y ago
> when so few of our users existing users, I suppose. New users are looking for exactly this feature and will walk away. So, you can now count it up to 3. IPv4 has gotten quite expensive. A newer company I'm working with doesn't even have IPv4 access past the edge. There is just a little proxy that handles IPv4 translation on the edge; it barely gets any traffic.