6 ms·
depends on how you look at it. Right now it's very much a tragedy of the commons. IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralise
by dijit 4mo ago
depends on how you look at it. Right now it's very much a tragedy of the commons.
IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- because it's a lot harder to make it work rather than throwing up a TURN box and relaying everything.
"The latency? Who cares? IPv6 sometimes breaks right now" - because nobody is testing it, so why should people be the first to support it? There's no easy upside.
The only real upside for businesses is not having to pay for increasingly expensive IPv4 allocations. But they don't really care, its not nearly expensive enough yet. Customers will get GCNAT, businesses will continue as normal.
All that will happen is that the internet gets slower and less equal.
Which is exactly the same thing that's happening with inefficient memory hungry software: people either have to buy a more expensive laptop or they have a shitty experience.. Nobody is advocating for them, they just feel things getting shittier year on year and many are just choosing to avoid technology instead.
- lwhi 4mo agoMaybe the solution is to make IPv4 prohibitively expensive.
- gruez 4mo ago>IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. At best you'd see something like netflix trying to offload their video hosting costs onto their customers.
- dijit 4mo agoThe sheer amount of times Airdrop has been the "best" way to share files takes away from your point a bit. It's almost always faster than anything else available, and ipv6 would make that method of sending files closer to the default for most people. Having VOIP in games or 1v1 lobbies is, in the strictest sense, "hosting" something in the same way. FD: I work in video games so I speak from this bias.
- inquirerGeneral 4mo ago[dead]
- crote 4mo agoIPv6 doesn't solve the Airdrop problem. It'll only work at reasonably-fast speeds in the rare case that both people are connected to the same wifi network - but there's already tools like LocalSend[0] for that. Having a file go via cellular provider A, halfway across the country, through some IX, halfway across the country back, and via cellular provider B tends to make things a bit slow. Similarly, using P2P for game VOIP is a Really Bad Idea as it basically doxxes the player. Even 1v1 lobbies aren't always with people you trust enough to invite them into your house, so you shouldn't be handing them your IP address! In 99% of cases it is better to proxy it via a server instead. [0]: https://localsend.org/ https://localsend.org/
- dijit 4mo ago> Really Bad Idea Brother, if I can do something to you based on your IP address you are already totally fucked. This whole "the thing that I use to be addressed on the internet is dangerous" myth needs to die. It's a telephone number, not a home address. You can block numbers.
- inigyou 4mo agoWell yeah, because they can't. Maybe if they could, they would do it more. You probably wouldn't want to host a permanent website from home, although some people do, but you could share a file. It would be popular with game servers, too.
- kortilla 4mo agoThe p2p tech argument doesn’t work anymore. Most routers ship a stateful IPv6 firewall enabled by default now because IPv6 was resulting in people’s vulnerable shit getting popped. So p2p stuff still doesn’t work without explicit configuration that rules out 99% of your users. It’s super annoying.
- dijit 4mo agoYeah, it's impossible to do anything about a stateful firewall to get p2p connections. It's a shame because if we could only get over stateful firewalling we'd be one step closer to the impossible task of using voice chat in console video games. Right now they don't have that of course and the only hurdle is "NAT Types" which, as we all know, is a much easier problem to solve for the average person... (this was sarcasm, if it wasn't clear).
- kalleboo 4mo agoHole punching works fine for IPv6 p2p. It even mostly works fine on IPv4 NAT, but there are a bunch of edge cases (often involving CGNAT) where it breaks down so you can't rely on it, which are solved by IPv6. https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works
- kortilla 4mo agoHole punching works fine for IPv4 as well outside of endpoint dependent NAT, which most ISPs don’t use because it visibly shows up to normies as a bad connection in PlayStations/Xboxes. Once you have to hole punch, you’ve lost the thread of why people bother switching to IPv6.