8 ms·
New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only
- VoodooJuJu 7mo ago[dead]
- rafaelcosta 7mo agoAs it should. Date notwithstanding, I would actually enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux. I know some people don't care at all, but the internet was made to be addressable. IPv6 is the only shot we have to go back to that.
- nslsm 7mo agoThis reminds me of the ways the governments screw over people to force them to do things they don’t want to.
- lxgr 7mo agoAnnoying things such as paying taxes, recycling/not polluting etc.? Some things really can only be solved via central coordination, as there is no natural game-theoretic/purely economic path from one local minimum to another. Being able to dig a small trench and letting gravity and water do the rest is great, but sometimes you do need a pump. I'm not convinced that IPv6 is such a case, but if it is, that's exactly the type of thing governments are much better at than markets.
- huijzer 7mo agoPlease no. I used to have a Dutch ISP a few months ago that did not support IPv6 yet. (Odido. Same ISP that leaked my data in a big hack.)
- jeroenhd 7mo agoOdido is the cheapest ISP for a reason. They refuse to implement anything that isn't strictly required. Perhaps implementing an Odido tax might actually make Odido care enough to throw the switch on IPv6. They bought 2a02:4240::/32, they just refuse to make use of it.
- miyuru 7mo agothey do use it in their speedtest server. curl -v https://speedtest.ams.t-mobile.nl.prod.hosts.ooklaserver.net:8080 ... * Connected to speedtest.ams.t-mobile.nl.prod.hosts.ooklaserver.net (2a02:4240::e) port 8080
- embedding-shape 7mo agoProbably a requirement from Ookla, so again "They refuse to implement anything that isn't strictly required".
- kingstnap 7mo ago> They refuse to implement anything strictly required This describes a lot of businesses ngl. Bell in Canada is one huge head scratcher. They are one of the largest ISPs here and I can even buy 8 gig internet to my house if I want but they don't support IPv6.
- bombcar 7mo agoApparently (according to techs) a lot of ISPs are like that - they said they have everything up and running and even tested to turn on IPv6 but they haven't received the go-ahead. He mentioned this because marking my connection as a "business" one without changing anything else would allow it to get IPv6 (a /64, bah).
- Sanzig 7mo agoCanadian ISPs are also extremely far behind on IPv6. Bell is the largest ISPs in the country and they still don't have IPv6. I'm with one of their wholly owned subsidiaries (EBOX) which offers static /56 allocations, but good luck trying to find anyone in tech support who understands WTF you're talking about.
- everdrive 7mo ago- I don't want my interfaces to have multiple IP addresses - I don't want my devices to have public, discoverable IPs - I like NAT and it works fine - I don't want to use dynamic DNS just so I have set up a single home server without my ISP rotating my /64 for no reason (and no SLAAC is not an answer because I don't want multiple addresses per interface) - I don't need an entire /48 for my home network IPv6 won't help the internet "be addressable." Almost everyone is moving towards centralized services, and almost no one is running home servers. IPv4 is not what is holding this back.
- doubled112 7mo agoI recently changed ISPs and have IPv6 for the first time. I mostly felt the same way, but have learned to get over it. Some things took some getting used to. An "ip address show" is messy with so many addresses. Those public IPs are randomized on most devices, so one is created and more static but goes mostly unused. The randomly generated IPs aren't useful inbound for long. I don't think you could brute force scan that kind of address space, and the address used to connect to the Internet will be different in a few hours. Having a public address doesn't worry me. At home I have a firewall at the edge. It is set to block everything incoming. Hosts have firewalls too. They also block everything. Back in the day, my PC got a real public IP too. NAT really is nice for keeping internal/external separate mentally. I'm lucky enough my current ISP does not rotate my IPv6 range. This, ironically, means I no longer need dynamic DNS. My IPv4 address changes daily. A residential account usually gets a /56, what are you talking about? Nowhere near a /48! (I'm just being funny here...) There are reasons to need direct connectivity that aren't hosting a server. Voice and video calls no longer need TURN/STUN. A bunch of workarounds required for online gaming become unnecessary. Be creative.
- bornfreddy 7mo ago> Having a public address doesn't worry me. At home I have a firewall at the edge. It is set to block everything incoming. Concern is privacy, not security. Publicly addressable machine is a bit worse for security (IoT anyone?), but it is a lot worse for privacy.
- sidewndr46 7mo agoWhy, so you can inflict some personal pain on people without IPv6 access?
- miyuru 7mo agoI am running IPv6 only servers, and I think it's fair that v4 only people feel the same pain some time in the future.
- traderj0e 7mo agoIPv6: only better than v4 if you kneecap v4, even then maybe not
- lxgr 7mo agoSurely IPv6 support will spontaneously materialize on their networks once their pain becomes big enough!
- kevvok 7mo agoIt’s not implemented in the Linux kernel, but the latency penalty you’re describing is part of the “Happy Eyeballs” algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs
- apitman 7mo agoAs sad as it makes me to admit, I don't think IPv6 is ever going to happen without government intervention. Adoption is flat at under 50% over the past year. IPv6 doesn't benefit big tech. SNI routing and NAT work pretty well for centralized platforms. AWS will gladly rent us IPv4 addresses until the end of time.
- toast0 7mo ago> IPv6 doesn't benefit big tech. It does, and big tech has largely adopted IPv6. For users with IPv6, the v6 path is often less constrained than then v4 path. Serving data faster/more consistently is of benefit to big tech. For a lot of users, v4 and v6 routing are different, which is also helpful for big tech. If you have two paths to the server (and happy eyeballs or something), you have more resiliance to routing issues. Clouds are slow on v6, but CDNs are not. Adoption on eyeball networks has been very slow, and it's unlikely to speed up much, IMHO. The benefits of v6 for ISPs are not that big for established serviced with large v4 pools. For ISPs running CGNAT, more v6 means less CGNAT and CGNAT is a lot more expensive than plain ip routing. (Doesn't mean all CGNAT providers run v6, but it's an incentive).
- zekica 7mo agoSNI routing is such a bad way to do what should be L3 problem that people implemented PROXY protocol to send information about user's endpoint address without doing MITM.
- Dagger2 7mo agoThe Internet itself is growing, so "50%" does still represent a growing number of users. Also Google's stats are missing half a billion v6 users from China.
- traderj0e 7mo agoAnother way to do ipv6 without government intervention is to make it 1. actually what people want, just v4 with more bits 2. have a reasonable migration path from v4. They made something overcomplicated that disregards all existing users, and now they act like this was the only possible way to avoid address exhaustion and it's everyone's obligation to switch. Even if the govt successfully forced v6, it'd be a downgrade.
- nurettin 7mo ago> enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux That sounds so bad, it probably will be a windows feature.
- hrmtst93837 7mo ago[flagged]
- hulitu 7mo ago> I would actually enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux Use the source, Luke. Why not start with yourself ?
- petcat 7mo agoIt will be a neat experiment, but I think most software will break and will remain broken indefinitely and then people will turn to LLMs to try to automate fixing all of it and that will turn into a mess just due to the sheer amount of changes required with little scrutiny.
- gear54rus 7mo agoPerhaps it's time to submit patches that allow building it without IPv6 instead. Countless hours of configuration meddling will be saved.
- zamadatix 7mo agoNot sure if you're taking the piss or just missed it but allowing build with either protocol alone is one of the genuine ideas in this joke: > Yeah. The date notwithstanding, I do actually think we should do most of this for real. > Maybe we don't get away with the actual deprecation and the warnings on use just yet, and maybe we won't even get away with calling the config option CONFIG_LEGACY_IP, although I would genuinely like to see us moving consistently towards saying "Legacy IP" instead of "IPv4" everywhere. > But we should clean up the separation of CONFIG_INET and CONFIG_IPV[64] and make it possible to build with either protocol alone.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Daegalus 7mo agogreat, now can we convince the rest of the internet to start adding AAAA records and ipv6 endpoints for things. Github is still a nightmare to use DNS64 and NAT64 to access those from IPv6 only machines. Or all the Container based stuff that still falls flat with ipv6 only modes. Docker still shits the bed if you dont give it ipv4 unless you do a lot of manual overrides to things. A bunch of Envoy based gateway proxies fail on internal ipv6 resources in a k8s cluster that runs on ARM64. There is just a bunch of nonsense you have to deal with if you choose the ipv6-only route Dont get me started on CDNs like Bunny or Load Balancers as a service like those from Hetzner, UpCloud, etc that don't work with ipv6 origins. Source: Trying to run a ipv6 only self-hosted box on hetzner.
- mhitza 7mo agoI've tried to run an IPv6 only box on Hetzner 2-3 years ago. Didn't have a problem with the platform, but with RedHat because subscription-manager didn't work over a IPv6-only stack.
- tialaramex 7mo agoWhen I accidentally had IPv6 only for a new Windows box it was very apparent what was a priority (worked regardless) and what wasn't important (only began working once I had IPv4 and everything fixed too). Baked in advertising? Works with any network. The option to turn off the baked in advertising? That needs IPv4.
- PennRobotics 7mo agoAround the same time, I think the Photoprism image also didn't work on IPv6 because of Traefik
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Macha 7mo agoI honestly think GitHub and AWS are the two biggest blockers to IPv6 left. Sure your public web servers might need IPv4 for a long while yet, but all these backend microservices and CI builds etc could all be v6 only, except they need to pull stuff from GitHub or certain AWS services.
- CookieCrisp 7mo agoWe’re so close guys! Another 25 years and we might almost be there!
- orangeboats 7mo agoIt's already the major protocol in many countries. A decade ago people were laughing, saying IPv6 will never break 10% adoption. Now it's 50% and somehow people are still making the same joke. Are we insidiously shifting the goalpost somehow? I don't know 'bout you but ots of services are confident enough in the technology to allow IPv6-only as an option, see eg. Hertzner. At this point one has to be borderline delusional to think IPv6 is only viable in another 25 years.
- porridgeraisin 7mo agoI suppose this will lead to a classic torvalds rant. I will be watching r/linusrants
- calvinmorrison 7mo ago[flagged]
- zamadatix 7mo agoGood stuff (both the joke and the genuine proposal of splitting the config options for IPv4 and IPv6).
- bornfreddy 7mo agoIPv6 vs. 4 is like Python 3 vs. 2, just worse.
- lxgr 7mo agoAnd IPv6 vs v4 discussions are just like Python 3 vs. 2 discussions: Often much more annoying than just getting it over with and switching.
- patmorgan23 7mo agoThis. Sure there are still some applications that might be difficult to v6 enable, so either patch it or use one of the myriad of options to give it a v6 front end.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- zadikian 7mo agoIt would've been less annoying to not do a breaking change from Py2 to 3. JS never had a breaking change like that.
- craftkiller 7mo agoThere are genuine improvements in IPv6 aside from the abundance of addresses. The two that immediately come to my mind are: 1. SLAAC means routers no longer need to keep a record of each client on the network. With DHCP, the router had to maintain a table of which addresses had been assigned and getting an address involved 2-way communication. With SLAAC the router just periodically broadcasts the prefix to the network and any device that wants an address can just listen to that broadcast and assign themselves an address within that prefix without having to inform the router and without the router needing to maintain a table of assigned addresses. (2-way communication is still possible since devices can solicit a broadcast but it is not necessary) 2. With IPv6, middleboxes are no longer allowed to fragment packets. The only device that can fragment a packet is the original sender. If any segment along the path has a lower MTU than the size of the packet, the original sender is notified and then they can fragment the packet.
- 1970-01-01 7mo agoThe best pranks are the ones that succeed to rattle an individual. Build it!
- ThrowawayTestr 7mo agoWhen I was in grade school I did a presentation on ipv6 and how it was the future of the Internet. That was like 20 years ago.
- iamnothere 7mo agoThis may be a “joke”, but it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context. Want to use IPv6? Fine. But don’t try to remove v4 support from people who have built stable networks around it. You won’t be able to force the world to switch to IPv6 with tricks like this, any more than you can force old industrial machines to stop using ancient 486es as controllers. There is a lot of old equipment in the world. IPv6 was built to work alongside v4, and there is no reason to change that.
- embedding-shape 7mo ago> it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context How does "allow building Linux to be IPv6-only" somehow "deny others their freedom" exactly? I'm willing to wager most distributions will still be dual v4+v6, but if they aren't, isn't that something for you to bring up with your distribution rather than that the kernel just allows something?
- iamnothere 7mo agoCoupling this patch with language about “legacy IP”, along with the follow up comments from the person who submitted the patch, it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4. I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions. I have no problem with allowing optional IPv4 or IPv6 only builds as long as both are kept well-maintained.
- embedding-shape 7mo ago> it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4 But so what? It still doesn't remove v4, in any shape or form, and if that was proposed to the kernel, I'm again fairly confident it'd be rejected. > I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions Ah, yeah that might be. I just saw your comment first, with no context of what you were actually answering, so it kind of looks like you're replying "to the submission", which really isn't denying any freedoms, I guess I was confused about that, my bad. Still, wouldn't it be better to answer directly to those comments, rather than "replying" to an argument/debate that is actually happening elsewhere?
- knorker 7mo agoI would like this option, to make it easier to run a CI environment truly IPv6-only. As in socket() to create a v4 socket should fail. seccomp could only do this partially, in that there are other avenues (e.g. io_uring), and I want it to be the case throughout the boot process.
- iso1631 7mo agoCreating a v4 socket should map to a v6 address lower down, making v6 transparent to v4 only applications.
- Incipient 7mo agoThe main thing I don't like is type-ability. Even now I type in 192.168.1.14 to connect to my mates computer to play satisfactory. No way in heck am I trying in an ip6!
- patmorgan23 7mo agoHmmmm maybe someone should come up with a SYSTEM to organize NAMES for ips, maybe using hierarchical DOMAINs.... Oh wait.
- gertop 7mo agoYour bad attempt at humor makes it quite clear that you've never dealt with network engineering or administrating to any extent. Admitting that ipv6 has some downsides, however minor they may seem to you, won't hurt your quest to render ipv4 obsolete. In fact being less insufferable is how you win people to your causes, not by laughing at their genuine albeit minor issues.
- fasterik 7mo agoThey were making a legitimate point a humorous way. The problem of manually typing in IP addresses has been solved by DNS for over 50 years.
- ryandrake 7mo agoI haven't had to type an IP address to access something on my home network for at least a decade, except for (occasionally) my xxx.1 router.
- matthews3 7mo agoWe could abbreviate that to SND!
- bpavuk 7mo agohow about just having zeroconf on and using .local domains?