https://www.heise.de/news/APNIC-Chefwissenschaftler-IPv6-Einfuehrung-wohl-obsolet-9995140.html
***party***
What a moron.
...what has been seen can't be made unseen... :-D
I think, it is clickbait. What that guy actually said according to this article, it is not what the heading implies.
The article is referring to the situation in the Asia-Pacific-Region that is largely dominated by China and India.
China is well on its way to IPv6. Mobile traffic is overwhelmingly IPv6 already. Recently, the government mandated the move to IPv6 even for the if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it IPv4 networks.
In India, double and even triple NAT within ISP networks used to be the norm. That's why they have moved to ~50% IPv6 already, but for many customers a new router is a significant investment and thus postponed until they don't have a choice.
In Germany, there are major ISPs that sell current model business routers that can't do prefix delegation in 2024. forum.opnsense.org has no IPv6 address while opnsense.org does... ;)
The USA got the lions share of available IPv4 address space. That's why many ISP and network equipment makers simply didn't bother to support IPv6. They didn't feel the squeeze. Ubiquiti is making essential IPv6 features user configurable in their software only now.
ipv6 deserves to die. no solutions, only problems.
Quote from: chemlud on October 28, 2024, 02:02:46 PM
ipv6 deserves to die. no solutions, only problems.
You mistyped IPv4! ::)
Quote from: chemlud on October 28, 2024, 02:02:46 PM
ipv6 deserves to die. no solutions, only problems.
Dynamic IPv6 needs to die.
Most issues with IPv6 are self inflicted by ISPs doing random weird garbage and not adhering to a common standard.
Most of the issues I always read are: "But my ISP wants to have it this way or that way for no reason".
For example I have a static IPv6 /56 prefix from Deutsche Telekom since 6 years and never had any IPv6 issues.
All I read here can be summarized: ipv6 helps nobody to solve a problem, but results in signifcant problems. NAT is for me a feature, not a bug.
So: ipv6 deserves to die quickly. and for ever...
Quote from: Monviech on October 28, 2024, 03:12:15 PM
Most issues with IPv6 are self inflicted by ISPs doing random weird garbage and not adhering to a common standard.
also +1
Quote from: chemlud on October 28, 2024, 04:27:31 PM
All I read here can be summarized: ipv6 helps nobody to solve a problem, but results in signifcant problems. NAT is for me a feature, not a bug.
So: ipv6 deserves to die quickly. and for ever...
That's a -1
Me really happy to have v6 for VPN purposes since I am behind CGNAT.
For sure me can pay high amounts of money to get a public IP... but why, thanks IPv6?
Why have a VPN on an inherently unsafe platform? If you can't control the OS and can't be root, it's not your device in the first place. It's like band-aid on a ruptured aorta...
It's political, ipv6. ;-)
IPv6 gives you globally routable addresses at your home or office so you can control all the devices and e.g. VPN connections. It brings back the end to end principle upon which the Internet was built.
Quote from: chemlud on October 28, 2024, 08:23:18 PM
Why have a VPN on an inherently unsafe platform?
???
I need VPN to talk to my local network at home and also my workplace.
For both me use v6 in first instance and v4 as failover (4G / DSL).
Where is there "an inherently unsafe platform"?
Where are the "safe" differences to v4?
:o
Quote from: tiermutter on October 28, 2024, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: chemlud on October 28, 2024, 04:27:31 PM
All I read here can be summarized: ipv6 helps nobody to solve a problem, but results in signifcant problems. NAT is for me a feature, not a bug.
So: ipv6 deserves to die quickly. and for ever...
That's a -1
Me really happy to have v6 for VPN purposes since I am behind CGNAT.
For sure me can pay high amounts of money to get a public IP... but why, thanks IPv6?
My IPv6 at home is still not a public IP, I'm also behind CGNAT. I guess this would be an example of an ISP messing things up. I wish I had any form of public and static IP at home, would make several things much easier.
Quote from: chemlud on October 28, 2024, 02:02:46 PM
ipv6 deserves to die. no solutions, only problems.
IPv6 should have never been born, to begin with.
Instead of adding 1, okay, maybe 2 extra bytes to IPv4 and still keeping the IP address readable and memorizable, they bumped bytes up to words and added 2. This gives us more possible IP addresses than protons in the universe. Audacity? Nothing but.
A 5-byte IPv5 for lack of better idiom would have afforded us with more than 1 trillon addresses which is enough for all consumer goods on our planet, assuming that each has to be tracked. A 6-byte address would have been enough to track every potato. But that was not good enough for cowboys, so they doubled the width and made addresses impossible to remember. Isn't that genius?
The width was quadrupled. And for sound technical reasons. Tell me you don't know networking without telling me you don't know networking, much?
I'm getting snarky so I better pull out of this discussion. About everything about the design of IPv6 is superior to the decades of accumulated band aid over band aid that is the present state of IPv4.
NAT is a terrible idea and violates the fundamental design principles upon which the Internet was built.
When bytes become words, it's doubling. That alone would have been enough, but no, they added more words. Now, try to remember a handful of IPv6 addresses for several years.
I'm ambivalent. Maybe I know too much.
I think if everybody adheres to the standard, and a few newer RFCs are universally implemented, it's fine. There are still a few scenarios left where it doesn't work.
I eagerly admit that I don't know Jack S!
All I know is that an instance of IPv4 is a 32-bit integer that obeys the respective arithmetic and needs simple GUI controls.
An instance of IPv6 is a 128-bit integer that is not immediately supported on many platforms and requires way more complex GUI controls. It also takes 4x the space in memory and logs.
As an admin, I hate IPv6. As a dev, I hate IPv6. Had they simply added 1, 2, 3, or worst case scenario 4 bytes to IPv4, it still would have been a 64-bit integer that most platforms support today, and it would have solved the problem of too few IP addresses, without opening another whole can of worms.
They wanted to solve it once and for all with IPv6 for when we become a Kardashev Type II civilization.
Imagine how hard it would be a few thousand years from now on when we have passed the great filter and do interplanetary travel between different galaxies.
Try to hammer IPv12 through the space senate. ;D
Quote from: verfluchten on October 29, 2024, 02:40:42 PM
I eagerly admit that I don't know Jack S!
All I know is that an instance of IPv4 is a 32-bit integer that obeys the respective arithmetic and needs simple GUI controls.
An instance of IPv6 is a 128-bit integer that is not immediately supported on many platforms and requires way more complex GUI controls. It also takes 4x the space in memory and logs.
As an admin, I hate IPv6. As a dev, I hate IPv6. Had they simply added 1, 2, 3, or worst case scenario 4 bytes to IPv4, it still would have been a 64-bit integer that most platforms support today, and it would have solved the problem of too few IP addresses, without opening another whole can of worms.
As a dev, what are you using IP addresses for. Don't you have gethostbyname()?
As an admin, you should use your DNS server.
IPv6 has been developed to address a lot of shortcomings of IPv4, not only, maybe not even primarily the lack of IP address space.
Some of those are of course now obsolete, but there are useful attempts to solve real problems in there.
As for the OP, the direct quote seems to be that he does not see IPv6 replace IPv4 COMPLETELY.
I don't either, but that's not really a strong statement.
I still see room for IPv4 in LAN network addressing, though ULAs would be better. There will also always be public IPv4 connectivity for the big internet services, and IPv4 CGNAT will be with us for quite a while.
Quote from: Monviech on October 29, 2024, 02:51:09 PM
Try to hammer IPv12 through the space senate. ;D
The senate is dysfunctional. Let's hand emergency powers to the supreme chancellor! ;D
...too much champagne now? :-O
CGNAT needs to die! :( (because it bugs me right now)
Quote from: bimbar on October 29, 2024, 02:54:14 PMAs an admin, you should use your DNS server.
IPv6 has been developed to address a lot of shortcomings of IPv4, not only, maybe not even primarily the lack of IP address space.
Some of those are of course now obsolete, but there are useful attempts to solve real problems in there.
As for the OP, the direct quote seems to be that he does not see IPv6 replace IPv4 COMPLETELY.
I don't either, but that's not really a strong statement.
I still see room for IPv4 in LAN network addressing, though ULAs would be better. There will also always be public IPv4 connectivity for the big internet services, and IPv4 CGNAT will be with us for quite a while.
None of this argues in favor of the current design of IPv6. You have not articulated any benefits of 8x 16-bit integers over 5-8x 8-bit integers that would have solved the problem of IPv4 being too few for Earth's population.
64 bits is not nearly enough for route aggregation and hierarchies. While it is next to impossible to exhaust 2^64 numbers, it is entirely possible to exhaust 64 bits.
That's the reasoning behind the prevalent 64+64 (or 8+8) design.
It's all explained very well in Benedikt's presentation from 2018:
https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2287/
Also "running out of addresses" is by far not the only motivation for IPv6. SLAAC is pure genius. As Clemens Schrimpe uses to put it: "Wie macht man IPv6? An!" (How does one do IPv6? Switch on!)
Unless your provider is run by morons. About everything about the design is simple, auto-configuring etc.
I am running a 100% dual stack ISP and hosting service for over a decade. Just follow the RIR recommendations and it is dead easy.
Quote from: Patrick M. Hausen on October 29, 2024, 07:13:48 PM
64 bits is not nearly enough for route aggregation and hierarchies.
I dare you to demonstrate that.
If you are not a software developer, it is hard to appreciate the true magnitude of a 64-bit number.
It gives you another whole range of IPv4 on top of itself. There is no way in hell this is not enough.
Good grief, watch Benedikt's talk, already.
I am a computer scientist, a software developer, a network professional, a FreeBSD and OPNsense contributor and don't you question my qualification.
I belong to the people who built this Internet as a mass medium thing. My company was founded in 1996.
Quote from: verfluchten on October 29, 2024, 07:28:33 PM
Quote from: Patrick M. Hausen on October 29, 2024, 07:13:48 PM
64 bits is not nearly enough for route aggregation and hierarchies.
I dare you to demonstrate that.
If you are not a software developer, it is hard to appreciate the true magnitude of a 64-bit number.
It gives you another whole range of IPv4 on top of itself. There is no way in hell this is not enough.
It seems you have never seen a structured IPv6 addressing scheme.
Which is, by the way, so much better than the "just use anything that's available" method of ip structuring we use with IPv4.
Can we summarize the discussion:
ipv6 is perfect, just the users are to dull to realize it?
A solution to the problem "smartphone", nothing else. Hmm, imho it's not worth the trouble.
Quote from: chemlud on October 30, 2024, 11:35:40 AM
Can we summarize the discussion:
ipv6 is perfect, just the users are to dull to realize it?
I am aware that various ISPs deliver dysfunctional IPv6 implementations violating official RIR recommendations. But claiming that the product is not necessary and IPv4 is all we will ever need is equally not helpful.
Official standards bodies:
- every consumer should get a static /56
- every small business should get a static /48
- every enterprise should get as much as they need
ISPs:
Now, how can we continue to ship "dynamic IP addresses" to force people to upgrade to the "business plan"?
As I said: morons.
We had 4 billion IPv4s minus blocks of private networks (a handful compared to the whole range) and supposedly ran out of them by 1998 when I spoke profusely against the new standard's wasteful bitness.
Now we have backwoods ISPs who are assigned blocks of 2k IPv4s and N*10^24 IPv6. I kid you not. But if we keep going like this, we will run out of even the 128-bit integer.
The fully-routable 32-bit IPv4 yields 4 billion addresses.
By adding only 1 extra byte, we would have gotten 1 trillion. Think of it!
By adding 2 extra bytes, we would have gotten 281 trillion. That would have been enough to give a routable IP address to every grain of rice on the planet. Imagine trackable grains of rice!
I'll skip 3.
By bumping IPv4 by 4 bytes, we would have gotten 18.5 pentillions-quintillions of addresses, enough to assign one to every electron.
All of that would have still been memorable to a decreasing degree and easily computable on relatively modern hardware. But it was not good enough for cowboys, and we settled on a 128-bit integer that no microcontroller or SOC can compute on silicon and needs libraries for.
Try to put yourself in a sysadmin's/sysop's/dev's shoes and to memorize a few dozens of this 100.101.102.103.104.105 or this: 2001:0000:130F:0000:0000:09C0:876A:130B.
Nuff said.
dead:beef::1/64
2001:fedb::192:168:1:1/64
you can be creative xD
Now I have read the original article (https://blog.apnic.net/2024/10/22/the-ipv6-transition/), it's actually quite interesting, but also, I think, shortsighted. I might also add that the word "obsolete" does not feature in this blogpost.
The central argument is that IPv4 address sharing (in the form of NAT and name-based virtual hosting) works quite well, and that the internet is not the peer-to-peer network we once thought, but mainly a method of delivering content from a central point to customers at the network edge.
However, I think that that point of view is already being made obsolete. The only observation is that we have learned to live with the dysfunctions of IPv4, and that the coping mechanisms make IPv6 unnecessary.
I would add that this heavily depends on the customer not being able to fully participate in the network, partly because he doesn't get a public address, and partly because he most likely has a internet connection that is too slow, and most of all, asymmetric.
But that factor is going away with the accelerating rollout of fiber connections to the customer. Another point is that the migration to the cloud does not seem to be as certain as it once was, with the prices as they are.
So in short, IPv4 is the communication protocol of a centralized internet optimized for the content consumer, while IPv6 enables the original decentralized approach that becomes more viable with the now available, much faster and symmetric, consumer internet connections.
Patrick,
I'd be very interested in a good long post about all the stuff that needs to be studied, maybe I can find a way around my CGNAT ISP, if they are doing IPv6 correctly. I think they are still handing out local addresses, but having a static internet routable address would be really nice.
Quote from: chemlud on October 28, 2024, 11:40:43 AM
https://www.heise.de/news/APNIC-Chefwissenschaftler-IPv6-Einfuehrung-wohl-obsolet-9995140.html
https://www.heise.de/meinung/Kommentar-IPv6-obsolet-Ich-glaub-ich-steh-im-Wald-9999396.html
Auja! Wir verlinken hier die schönsten Kommentare vom Heise-Forum! Dafür sollten wir ein eigens Board einrichten! :-D
Quote from: Greg_E on October 30, 2024, 04:01:33 PM
I'd be very interested in a good long post about all the stuff that needs to be studied, maybe I can find a way around my CGNAT ISP, if they are doing IPv6 correctly. I think they are still handing out local addresses, but having a static internet routable address would be really nice.
Benedikt has got a number of great videos - he is one of the leading experts in Germany:
https://www.youtube.com/@benediktstockebrand9719/videos
Click on "oldest first" to see mainly IPv6 related content.
Also Ivan Pepelnjak's blog is great, although you have to search a bit for IPv6 related things. Ivan is one of the most prominent people making the case that ULA is useless in actual deployments.
https://www.ipspace.net/Main_Page
HTH,
Patrick
QuoteULA is useless in actual deployments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAp6RUNEN-U
Quote from: chemlud on October 31, 2024, 09:01:57 AM
Auja! Wir verlinken hier die schönsten Kommentare vom Heise-Forum! Dafür sollten wir ein eigens Board einrichten! :-D
Heise-Forum?
Quote from: Patrick M. Hausen on October 31, 2024, 09:03:04 AM
Also Ivan Pepelnjak's blog is great, although you have to search a bit for IPv6 related things. Ivan is one of the most prominent people making the case that ULA is useless in actual deployments.
https://www.ipspace.net/Main_Page
HTH,
Patrick
Especially his small site multihoming with ipv6 articles are very topical.