4 ms·

The comparison with IPv6 is interesting. IPv6 isn't mainly driven by open source or community. It is driven by the needs of large corporations, including both I

by kccqzy 2y ago

The comparison with IPv6 is interesting. IPv6 isn't mainly driven by open source or community. It is driven by the needs of large corporations, including both ISPs and tech companies. ISPs like T-mobile wanting to run an IPv6-only backbone network, and tech companies like Apple forcing every app in the App Store to work in IPv6-only mode (DNS64+NAT64). New operating system levels features for IPv6 are often proposed by big tech companies and then implemented eagerly by them; see for example DHCP option 108. In a sense the need for IPv6 is driven by corporates just like that for HTTP/3.

vlovich123 2y ago
Ummm… Google invented QUIC and pushed it into Chrome and shuttled it through IETF to be ratified as a standard. Some of the large OSS projects are maintained by large companies (eg quiche is by Cloudflare) and Microsoft has MsQuic which you can link against directly or just use the kernel mode version built into the OS directly since Windows 11. The need for QUIC is actually even more driven by corporates since IPv6 was a very small comparative pain point compared to better reaching customers with large latency network connections.
elcritch 2y ago
IPv6 always seemed to me to be driven by a certain class of purist networking geeks. Then some corporations started getting on board like you said, but many couldn't care less.
- FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
  The largest use of IPv6 is in mobile (cell) networks. When they effectively killed IP block mobility (provider independent netblocks), they (the standards bodies) effectively killed it's adoption everywhere else. I work in the networking space and outside of dealing with certain European subsidiaries, we don't use IPv6 anywhere. It's a pain to use and the IPv6 stacks on equipment (routers, firewalls, etc) are no where near the quality, affordability, and reliability of their IPv4 stacks.
  - Sesse__ 2y ago
    What do you mean? IPv6 PI is common and easy to get; there's no big difference between IPv4 and IPv6 there.
    - FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
      I've gone through dozens of applications for a PI block and all been turned down. Heard the same from most of the networking people I know of. One even had their company become a LIR just so they could lock down a block. Outside of Europe I don't know anyone not FAANG sized that managed to get it done in the last few years. In my dealings with small to medium sized biz, I usually go the SDWAN route to aggregate and balance in IPv4 space instead as it is MUCH easier to get it done from an ISP.
      - Sesse__ 2y ago
        Huh, I have one for my personal home network :-) Granted, that is in RIPE. As long as you're multihomed, how can they turn it down?
        FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
        Multihoming is broken for most people in IPv6 space. It's stupid easy in IPv4. https://blog.ipspace.net/2010/12/small-site-multihoming-in-ipv6-mission/ https://blog.ipspace.net/2010/12/small-site-multihoming-in-i...
        Sesse__ 2y ago
        You lost me at “multiple per-interface NAT rules […] with some load balancing trick” being “stupid easy”… But BGP+PI is indeed how multihoming is supposed to work, both in IPv4 and IPv6. (Well, in IPv6, you can put two prefixes on-link and do poor man's multihoming that way, which you cannot reliably in IPv4.) Of course, if you define “it cannot be BGP+PI”, then indeed it's probably harder, but if you exclude the intended solution, obviously there's no intended solution.
- pas 2y ago
  wanting p2p to work (without quixotic NAT hole-punching) is puristry?
  - nine_k 2y ago
    What good is your IPv6, Mr Anderson, if your upstream provider and/or middleboxes along the way do not support it?
    - pas 2y ago
      I'm happy to report that - to my utter amazement - my ISP's on-prem device does /64 prefix delegation to each (DHCPv6?) client.
      - nine_k 2y ago
        Yes, right now every large provider does that, which is great. That was not the case when the first p2p networks were growing big (Napster, Gnutella, that kind of thing).
      - preisschild 2y ago
        Can you request a bigger delegation? a single /64 is very limiting, since that effectively limits you to 1 subnet (so no extra guest / IoT subnet)
        kiwijamo 2y ago
        You could ask your ISP/RSP for another /64? My RSP can do so I believe, not that I've asked.
        preisschild 2y ago
        With "good" ISPs that support IPv6 well you'd only have to change your DHCPv6 config to request a larger delegation instead of the default /64. Unfortunately, some ISPs (including mine) limit this to /64 only, which is extremely limiting.
- nine_k 2y ago
  The exhaustion of IPv4 address pool was easy to predict even in 2000, just by extrapolation of the growth curve. Then came IP telephony backbone and the mobile internet, topped up with the cloud, and the need became acute. For the large corporations involved, at least.
- kccqzy 2y ago
  Oh many purist networking geeks joined large corporations so that these corporations began to push IPv6 in a direction set by the geeks. They understood that as independent geeks they have essentially no say in the evolution of IPv6. My favorite example here is Android refusing to support stateful DHCPv6; it's clear that it's being pushed by purist networking geeks inside Google.
  - kiwijamo 2y ago
    With IPv6 RAs, there's no need for DHCPv6. I don't use it at all and I use IPv6 just fine on mobile. One place where DHCPv6 may make some sense is the router<->WAN/ISP connection. However once your router has a IPv6 prefix, it can easily advertise it on your LAN/WLAN for devices to capture it via IPv6 RAs for its IPv6 autoconfiguration which Just Works. Given that Android devices will attach to a WLAN router (and not directly to your WAN/ISP) it makes sense for there to be no DHCPv6 as it's not necessary for end user devices that aren't expected to be attached directly to the WAN/ISP.
    - kccqzy 2y ago
      My home network doesn't use stateful DHCPv6 either. I agree there's no need. The bigger thing is carrying this "you don't need it" attitude to a product used by billions. Thousands of network operators who do not believe in "you don't need it" are now forced to make their network work for Android. If those purists had guts they should go to the IETF and formally deprecate stateful DHCPv6.
  - kllrnohj 2y ago
    > My favorite example here is Android refusing to support stateful DHCPv6; it's clear that it's being pushed by purist networking geeks inside Google. If you read the huge bug on it, Google's counter argument is stateful dhcpv6 significantly complicates tethering to the point of needing an ipv6 nat. That's a very practical position to take, hardly "purist network objectionists"
    - kccqzy 2y ago

by kccqzy 2y ago

vlovich123 2y ago

Ummm… Google invented QUIC and pushed it into Chrome and shuttled it through IETF to be ratified as a standard. Some of the large OSS projects are maintained by large companies (eg quiche is by Cloudflare) and Microsoft has MsQuic which you can link against directly or just use the kernel mode version built into the OS directly since Windows 11. The need for QUIC is actually even more driven by corporates since IPv6 was a very small comparative pain point compared to better reaching customers with large latency network connections.

elcritch 2y ago

IPv6 always seemed to me to be driven by a certain class of purist networking geeks. Then some corporations started getting on board like you said, but many couldn't care less.

FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
The largest use of IPv6 is in mobile (cell) networks. When they effectively killed IP block mobility (provider independent netblocks), they (the standards bodies) effectively killed it's adoption everywhere else. I work in the networking space and outside of dealing with certain European subsidiaries, we don't use IPv6 anywhere. It's a pain to use and the IPv6 stacks on equipment (routers, firewalls, etc) are no where near the quality, affordability, and reliability of their IPv4 stacks.
- Sesse__ 2y ago
  What do you mean? IPv6 PI is common and easy to get; there's no big difference between IPv4 and IPv6 there.
  - FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
    I've gone through dozens of applications for a PI block and all been turned down. Heard the same from most of the networking people I know of. One even had their company become a LIR just so they could lock down a block. Outside of Europe I don't know anyone not FAANG sized that managed to get it done in the last few years. In my dealings with small to medium sized biz, I usually go the SDWAN route to aggregate and balance in IPv4 space instead as it is MUCH easier to get it done from an ISP.
    - Sesse__ 2y ago
      Huh, I have one for my personal home network :-) Granted, that is in RIPE. As long as you're multihomed, how can they turn it down?
      - FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
        Multihoming is broken for most people in IPv6 space. It's stupid easy in IPv4. https://blog.ipspace.net/2010/12/small-site-multihoming-in-ipv6-mission/ https://blog.ipspace.net/2010/12/small-site-multihoming-in-i...
        Sesse__ 2y ago
        You lost me at “multiple per-interface NAT rules […] with some load balancing trick” being “stupid easy”… But BGP+PI is indeed how multihoming is supposed to work, both in IPv4 and IPv6. (Well, in IPv6, you can put two prefixes on-link and do poor man's multihoming that way, which you cannot reliably in IPv4.) Of course, if you define “it cannot be BGP+PI”, then indeed it's probably harder, but if you exclude the intended solution, obviously there's no intended solution.
pas 2y ago
wanting p2p to work (without quixotic NAT hole-punching) is puristry?
- nine_k 2y ago
  What good is your IPv6, Mr Anderson, if your upstream provider and/or middleboxes along the way do not support it?
  - pas 2y ago
    I'm happy to report that - to my utter amazement - my ISP's on-prem device does /64 prefix delegation to each (DHCPv6?) client.
    - nine_k 2y ago
      Yes, right now every large provider does that, which is great. That was not the case when the first p2p networks were growing big (Napster, Gnutella, that kind of thing).
    - preisschild 2y ago
      Can you request a bigger delegation? a single /64 is very limiting, since that effectively limits you to 1 subnet (so no extra guest / IoT subnet)
      - kiwijamo 2y ago
        You could ask your ISP/RSP for another /64? My RSP can do so I believe, not that I've asked.
        preisschild 2y ago
        With "good" ISPs that support IPv6 well you'd only have to change your DHCPv6 config to request a larger delegation instead of the default /64. Unfortunately, some ISPs (including mine) limit this to /64 only, which is extremely limiting.
nine_k 2y ago
The exhaustion of IPv4 address pool was easy to predict even in 2000, just by extrapolation of the growth curve. Then came IP telephony backbone and the mobile internet, topped up with the cloud, and the need became acute. For the large corporations involved, at least.
kccqzy 2y ago
Oh many purist networking geeks joined large corporations so that these corporations began to push IPv6 in a direction set by the geeks. They understood that as independent geeks they have essentially no say in the evolution of IPv6. My favorite example here is Android refusing to support stateful DHCPv6; it's clear that it's being pushed by purist networking geeks inside Google.
- kiwijamo 2y ago
  With IPv6 RAs, there's no need for DHCPv6. I don't use it at all and I use IPv6 just fine on mobile. One place where DHCPv6 may make some sense is the router<->WAN/ISP connection. However once your router has a IPv6 prefix, it can easily advertise it on your LAN/WLAN for devices to capture it via IPv6 RAs for its IPv6 autoconfiguration which Just Works. Given that Android devices will attach to a WLAN router (and not directly to your WAN/ISP) it makes sense for there to be no DHCPv6 as it's not necessary for end user devices that aren't expected to be attached directly to the WAN/ISP.
  - kccqzy 2y ago
    My home network doesn't use stateful DHCPv6 either. I agree there's no need. The bigger thing is carrying this "you don't need it" attitude to a product used by billions. Thousands of network operators who do not believe in "you don't need it" are now forced to make their network work for Android. If those purists had guts they should go to the IETF and formally deprecate stateful DHCPv6.
- kllrnohj 2y ago
  > My favorite example here is Android refusing to support stateful DHCPv6; it's clear that it's being pushed by purist networking geeks inside Google. If you read the huge bug on it, Google's counter argument is stateful dhcpv6 significantly complicates tethering to the point of needing an ipv6 nat. That's a very practical position to take, hardly "purist network objectionists"
  - kccqzy 2y ago