8 ms·

ARIN Activates IPv4 Unmet Requests Policy

79 points by AndrewDucker 11y ago

AndrewMock 11y ago
ha and AWS still can't throw IPv6 on
- betaby 11y ago
  Neither DNSSEC on Route53. Plenty of technologies are just not available on 'insert popular cloud provider of today'. That's why not everyone there where everyone-else.
  - scurvy 11y ago
    DNSSEC is a bad solution. That's why most have not deployed it yet. IPv6 is good. It works and works well.
    - scurvy 11y ago
      Why the downvotes? Just because I said something negative about DNSSEC? DNSSEC is a bad solution. More well informed minds than HackerNews have come out as to why DNSSEC is a bad idea. I'm not being mean or spiteful. It really isn't going to work. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/18/is_the_dns_security_protocol_a_waste_of_everyones_time_and_money/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/18/is_the_dns_security_... In light of the "Let's Encrypt All the Things" movement, I'm surprised that anyone could ever support DNSSEC.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- scurvy 11y ago
  AWS is "working on it." It's not like they're burying their head in the sand and hoping it goes away. These things just take time.
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    They've been working on it for at least three years. We were really interested in deploying our application on the AWS infrastructure, until they made it clear that IPv6 wasn't going to happen for the foreseeable future. I guess they do get good marks for being transparent on their roadmap and not getting our hopes up.
    - scurvy 11y ago
      They might have had issues with various gear, tooling, etc. You'd be surprised how many routing vendors screwed up IPv6 subnetting. Hence, why you need to assign a /126 on PtP links for some gear, instead of a /127. Some vendors still thought IPv6 had a broadcast address (it doesn't). Sure that's just an example and doesn't preclude them from offering it, but maybe they're conservative and wanted to get everything working right before releasing it? Also, some older gear routed/forwarded IPv6 in software; making it much slower. Our biggest problem had nothing to do with network hardware. It all came down to developers still writing IP regex's wrong for our app. Maybe I should write an e-book "IPv6 for the node/jquery developer?" tl;dr it's not in Amazon's market interests to delay IPv6 adoption
      - ghshephard 11y ago
        "Some vendors still thought IPv6 had a broadcast address" I have never known anyone working with IPv6 for more than a day who doesn't understand that IPv6 does not have a broadcast address. I do not believe any vendor writing a routing stack would fail to understand that. Though, I do agree in early days, they screwed things up. For example, Dell would not route RFC 4193 (FC/7) addresses around 2005. I had to rip out and ship back a dozen of their routers when I realized they weren't going to fix that. I think you might be onto something about gear though - I've read that Amazon builds their own routers, and routing stack - which means they can't simply deploy a well tested/regressed IPv6 stack, they have to write and test it from scratch. The dark side of doing everything yourself.
Negitivefrags 11y ago
So what are server hosts going to do now? If I need to scale up and order some more servers when are we going to get to the point where they say no? I assume that server hosts are going to start charging larger and larger sums of money per month for more than a single IP on a server in order to claw back some of their allocation from their customers in cases where people didn't really need so many. But how long can this go on?
- _RPM 11y ago
  Your load balancer has a public IP address. You route requests to the internal LAN on one of the "private" IP blocks (10.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/8)
  - Negitivefrags 11y ago
    I suppose that it would be that easy if we were hosting a website. We make an online game though so the general solution isn't going to work for us. Sure, in principal it's the same but it's going to require a fair bit more manual implementation in our case, not to mention added latency in a very latency sensitive application.
    - blantonl 11y ago
      TCP load balancing would also be an option in your case.
    - asdfaoeu 11y ago
      I think your exaggerating the latency effects but anyway you can still buy IPv4 addresses for ~$12/ip. This is really just going to initially hurt service providers which is good because those are the ones who can make large inroads with IPv6
      - jingo 11y ago
        "... you can still buy IPv4 addresses for ~$12/ip." About the price of a domainname? (Note I did not use the word "cost". I create dommainnames all the time at the price of $0.) Given the choice between a domainname and an IPv4 adddress, I would take the IPv4 address. Also, given the choice between a single, routable IPv4 addresses and a block of IPv6 addresses, I would still choose the IPv4 address. IPv4 is "simplicity" in comparison to the complexity of IPv6. IPv6 has features I do not need. Whenever I am granted the choice, I always choose simplicity over complexity. Most of the time the additonal complexity is not needed and can only cause problems in the long run. This is only the opinion of one "consumer". Certainly the "market" may have another opinion.
throwaway000002 11y ago
Off topic, but considering HN uses Cloudflare, why isn't it IPv6 enabled?
- scurvy 11y ago
  They have to enable it in their CF account. No idea why they have not. HN hasn't updated their log parsing toolset for IPv6?
tomjen3 11y ago
And yet almost no server supports ipv6 and almost no consumer isp supports it either.
- tzs 11y ago
  Comcast, the largest consumer ISP in the US, supports IPv6 on its entire network, and all current modems they supply have it enabled. There are still customers on older modems, and customers who have brought their own modems that do not support it, so only about 50% of Comcast users are actually running IPv6. Consumer wireless ISPs in the US are also doing pretty good. Verizon has 70% deployment, and AT&T and T-mobile are around 50%.
- scurvy 11y ago
  That's simply not true. Over 22% of US Internet consumers have IPv6 addresses. Your mobile phone probably has a (few) IPv6 addresses. From NANOG 64: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s
  - ay 11y ago
    You can go to http://testipv6.com/ http://testipv6.com/ and check for yourself. Indeed, 1 out of 5 users in USA today has IPv6.
- ersii 11y ago
  I got IPv6 connectivity on my LTE-services. (Sweden)
- azernik 11y ago
  Most servers do support IPv6 these days. It's all the networking infrastructure in the middle that's the problem.
  - scurvy 11y ago
    That's mostly not accurate. Every transit provider offers IPv6 transit. It's not any different or more expensive for them. Routes are routes and datagrams are datagrams to them. The stuff that doesn't support IPv6 is mostly older CPE gear (your old firewall, a bunk load balancer, an oddball console server, etc). You really just need a router that supports IPv6 to offer an IPv6 capable server. Maybe a firewall and loadbalancer if that's in your setup, but those should all support IPv6 already. Things like your access switches and console servers don't require IPv6 addresses yet. You can leave them on IPv4 for now. Your customers aren't going to be accessing them, only you.

79 points by AndrewDucker 11y ago

AndrewMock 11y ago

ha and AWS still can't throw IPv6 on

betaby 11y ago
Neither DNSSEC on Route53. Plenty of technologies are just not available on 'insert popular cloud provider of today'. That's why not everyone there where everyone-else.
- scurvy 11y ago
  DNSSEC is a bad solution. That's why most have not deployed it yet. IPv6 is good. It works and works well.
  - scurvy 11y ago
    Why the downvotes? Just because I said something negative about DNSSEC? DNSSEC is a bad solution. More well informed minds than HackerNews have come out as to why DNSSEC is a bad idea. I'm not being mean or spiteful. It really isn't going to work. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/18/is_the_dns_security_protocol_a_waste_of_everyones_time_and_money/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/18/is_the_dns_security_... In light of the "Let's Encrypt All the Things" movement, I'm surprised that anyone could ever support DNSSEC.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
scurvy 11y ago
AWS is "working on it." It's not like they're burying their head in the sand and hoping it goes away. These things just take time.
- ghshephard 11y ago
  They've been working on it for at least three years. We were really interested in deploying our application on the AWS infrastructure, until they made it clear that IPv6 wasn't going to happen for the foreseeable future. I guess they do get good marks for being transparent on their roadmap and not getting our hopes up.
  - scurvy 11y ago
    They might have had issues with various gear, tooling, etc. You'd be surprised how many routing vendors screwed up IPv6 subnetting. Hence, why you need to assign a /126 on PtP links for some gear, instead of a /127. Some vendors still thought IPv6 had a broadcast address (it doesn't). Sure that's just an example and doesn't preclude them from offering it, but maybe they're conservative and wanted to get everything working right before releasing it? Also, some older gear routed/forwarded IPv6 in software; making it much slower. Our biggest problem had nothing to do with network hardware. It all came down to developers still writing IP regex's wrong for our app. Maybe I should write an e-book "IPv6 for the node/jquery developer?" tl;dr it's not in Amazon's market interests to delay IPv6 adoption
    - ghshephard 11y ago
      "Some vendors still thought IPv6 had a broadcast address" I have never known anyone working with IPv6 for more than a day who doesn't understand that IPv6 does not have a broadcast address. I do not believe any vendor writing a routing stack would fail to understand that. Though, I do agree in early days, they screwed things up. For example, Dell would not route RFC 4193 (FC/7) addresses around 2005. I had to rip out and ship back a dozen of their routers when I realized they weren't going to fix that. I think you might be onto something about gear though - I've read that Amazon builds their own routers, and routing stack - which means they can't simply deploy a well tested/regressed IPv6 stack, they have to write and test it from scratch. The dark side of doing everything yourself.

Negitivefrags 11y ago

So what are server hosts going to do now? If I need to scale up and order some more servers when are we going to get to the point where they say no? I assume that server hosts are going to start charging larger and larger sums of money per month for more than a single IP on a server in order to claw back some of their allocation from their customers in cases where people didn't really need so many. But how long can this go on?

_RPM 11y ago
Your load balancer has a public IP address. You route requests to the internal LAN on one of the "private" IP blocks (10.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/8)
- Negitivefrags 11y ago
  I suppose that it would be that easy if we were hosting a website. We make an online game though so the general solution isn't going to work for us. Sure, in principal it's the same but it's going to require a fair bit more manual implementation in our case, not to mention added latency in a very latency sensitive application.
  - blantonl 11y ago
    TCP load balancing would also be an option in your case.
  - asdfaoeu 11y ago
    I think your exaggerating the latency effects but anyway you can still buy IPv4 addresses for ~$12/ip. This is really just going to initially hurt service providers which is good because those are the ones who can make large inroads with IPv6
    - jingo 11y ago
      "... you can still buy IPv4 addresses for ~$12/ip." About the price of a domainname? (Note I did not use the word "cost". I create dommainnames all the time at the price of $0.) Given the choice between a domainname and an IPv4 adddress, I would take the IPv4 address. Also, given the choice between a single, routable IPv4 addresses and a block of IPv6 addresses, I would still choose the IPv4 address. IPv4 is "simplicity" in comparison to the complexity of IPv6. IPv6 has features I do not need. Whenever I am granted the choice, I always choose simplicity over complexity. Most of the time the additonal complexity is not needed and can only cause problems in the long run. This is only the opinion of one "consumer". Certainly the "market" may have another opinion.

throwaway000002 11y ago

Off topic, but considering HN uses Cloudflare, why isn't it IPv6 enabled?

scurvy 11y ago
They have to enable it in their CF account. No idea why they have not. HN hasn't updated their log parsing toolset for IPv6?

tomjen3 11y ago

And yet almost no server supports ipv6 and almost no consumer isp supports it either.

tzs 11y ago
Comcast, the largest consumer ISP in the US, supports IPv6 on its entire network, and all current modems they supply have it enabled. There are still customers on older modems, and customers who have brought their own modems that do not support it, so only about 50% of Comcast users are actually running IPv6. Consumer wireless ISPs in the US are also doing pretty good. Verizon has 70% deployment, and AT&T and T-mobile are around 50%.
scurvy 11y ago
That's simply not true. Over 22% of US Internet consumers have IPv6 addresses. Your mobile phone probably has a (few) IPv6 addresses. From NANOG 64: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s
- ay 11y ago
  You can go to http://testipv6.com/ http://testipv6.com/ and check for yourself. Indeed, 1 out of 5 users in USA today has IPv6.
ersii 11y ago
I got IPv6 connectivity on my LTE-services. (Sweden)
azernik 11y ago
Most servers do support IPv6 these days. It's all the networking infrastructure in the middle that's the problem.
- scurvy 11y ago
  That's mostly not accurate. Every transit provider offers IPv6 transit. It's not any different or more expensive for them. Routes are routes and datagrams are datagrams to them. The stuff that doesn't support IPv6 is mostly older CPE gear (your old firewall, a bunk load balancer, an oddball console server, etc). You really just need a router that supports IPv6 to offer an IPv6 capable server. Maybe a firewall and loadbalancer if that's in your setup, but those should all support IPv6 already. Things like your access switches and console servers don't require IPv6 addresses yet. You can leave them on IPv4 for now. Your customers aren't going to be accessing them, only you.