this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
104 points (94.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43610 readers
1205 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Now currently I'm not in the workforce, but in the past from my work experience, apprenticeship and temp roles, I've always seen ipv4 and not ipv6!

Hell, my ISP seems to exclusively use ipv4 (unless behind nats they're using ipv6)

Do you think a lot of people stick with the earlier iteration because they have been so familiar with it for a long time?

When you look at a ipv6, it looks menacing with a long string of letters and numbers compared to the more simpler often.

I am aware the IP bucket has gone dry and they gotta bring in a new IP cow with a even bigger bucket, but what do you think? Do you yourself or your firm use ipv4 or 6?

(page 2) 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

You can pry my v4 addresses from my cold dead hands.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

a teammate implemented it because he thought it would be a good resume project. it added more maintenance work to a lot of pieces, forever. there is no measurable benefit to the business

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

ipv6 isnt real.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago

Both my employer and my home ISP use IPv6 since many years now and so does all my own stuff, it's wonderfully convenient to have a globally unique address for everything that I connect to the network.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

With NAT existing, I'm not sure there's a significant reason to switch anymore.

Plus the "surprise" privacy and security benefits of just... not having every network connected device directly addressable by anyone else on the global network. The face of the internet and networking in general, plus the security and safety concerns around it, have changed dramatically since v6 was first created.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

I think djb was right, over twenty years ago: The IPv6 mess

The IPv6 designers made a fundamental conceptual mistake: they designed the IPv6 address space as an alternative to the IPv4 address space, rather than an extension to the IPv4 address space.

There was an alternative proposal that was backward-compatible with IPv4, but I’ve forgotten the name now.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh man, that would have been so great. Think of all the networking stacks that could have just been silently upgraded. Just some letters/numbers appended to the front or back. If you only get x bytes then prepend with zeroes. Adoption would have been mostly transparent.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago

Yup. For those that don't know, that's essentially how utf-8 works -

https://youtu.be/MijmeoH9LT4

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

IPv6 after so many years still is a victim of the chicken-egg-problem. People don't need it because services don't support it because people don't need it because ... and so on and so forth. I try to enable IPv6 wherever I can and I didn't have a propblem for ages. Dual stack is stable and there are actually a good amount of services that support it.

I think we should all push to implement IPv6 so that IPv4 can finally be laid to rest. Using IPv4 makes everything a bit more expensive because it is so damn expensive to get a stupid number. If someone is really scared that every computer has a publicly routable IP, and if you really think you can not configure a firewall, there is a private IPv6 space and you can use NAT with IPv6. It's not recomended but it's possible. I'd still say using a firewall is not harder and just as safe.

And there is the fact that you can make so many subnets which can make your internal network so much safer. You can controll better how packages are sent to groups because broadcast was dropped in favor of multicast. There is IPSec Support built in. Secure Neighbor Desicorvery to prevent attacks like ARP spoofing. There are a lot of reasons to implement IPv6 and even to switch to IPv6 only if possible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why should I use IP6 in my small home network?

Or in an SMB where there are less than 100 IP's used on a daily basis?

First I have to pay the cost of transition, along with the risk of things not working while I do this, and then the risk of something new being added and not working.

There's simply no value in these environments to switching, and a lot of risk.

Now let's look at Enterprise, where you have thousands of desktops, probably thousands of servers, extensive networking that already works (along with many, many devices that don't support IP6, like printers, scanners, access control devices, surveillance hardware, etc, etc). Are you going to pay the tens of millions to transition, and assume the risk?

IP6 is good for backbone right now. It will slowly transition into LAN for larger environments (think Enterprise when they setup new network segments, since they're buying new hardware anyway. But only after extensive testing.

But IP4 is just fine for small networks, and I don't see any reason for IP6, ever, for home and SMB LAN.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

Why should I use IP6 in my small home network?

  • No NAT. Especially in a home network NAT can be a hassle.
  • A bit more anonymity through changing temporary adresses.
  • Some people don't even have a real IPv4 address anymore in their home and only connect through CGNAT. That means that if you disable IPv6 on your computer you only use CGNAT.
  • The fact that EVERYONE needs to transition to IPv6 or it doesn't make sense.

Or in an SMB where there are less than 100 IP’s used on a daily basis?

  • No NAT. NAT is no firewall. If you can't set up a firewall you are honetly not qualified to be a network admin.
  • Easier VPN S2S-VPN. I had a few instances where the internal IP ranges clashed.
  • All the other advancements of IPv6
  • The fact that EVERYONE needs to transition to IPv6 or it doesn't make sense.

First I have to pay the cost of transition, along with the risk of things not working while I do this, and then the risk of something new being added and not working.

You can transition step by step. Dual Stack is a thing.

IP6 is good for backbone right now. It will slowly transition into LAN for larger environments (think Enterprise when they setup new network segments, since they’re buying new hardware anyway. But only after extensive testing.

That makes no sense to me. Every network in itself doesn't need IPv6. The 10.0.0.0/8 range has 16 777 216 addresses. IPv6 only makes sense if everyone uses it. We bought ourselves time with NAT and CGNAT and splitting up older ranges but that won't last forever and is costly.

Everyone needs to transition otherwise services will need to keep their IPv4 forever. And if the services keep their IPv4 users don't have an incentive. Maybe we should transition BEFORE there is time pressure. Now is the time to slowly start setting everything up with enough time to plan and test firewall rules and appliances and everything else.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago

Just annoyed when I need to specify port when using IPv6. Needs to add square bracket to workaround ambiguity of colon is kinda bad. How can they decide to use colon instead of another special character??

[–] [email protected] 56 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Cloud infra engineer here.

Answer: I don’t think about it. Nothing fully supports it, so we pretend it doesn’t exist.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago

That's exactly my experience with it.

Some certificates are even annoyed by IPv6 and they won't install until i remove any trace of it from the DNS. This should also pretty much be the only occasion I'm forced to deal with IPv6, instead of glancing over it while working on the server configs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I enjoyed getting the IPv6 certification from Hurricane Electric. Everyone should learn about it! https://ipv6.he.net/

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

I still have my IPv6 sage shirt somewhere.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Have been using it since late 90s, stopped using it with the shutdown of SixXs as there still were no viable native options in pretty all my infra locations. Recently started using it again as I finally have an ISP providing proper v6.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We disable IPv6 often when troubleshooting a network issue. Nothing that I have seen requires IPv6, and turning it off solves more issues than we would expect even today. It’s not the first thing I’m going to try, but I’ll often do it if I have to reboot anyway.

I also uninstall Dell Optimizer and Dell Optimizer Service on sight regardless of the issue because that evil will cause problems eventually. Best to just eradicate it on sight.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

You should rather find out why things break with IPv6. The best time to make IPv6 work is now.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 weeks ago

Company currently uses IPv6! For awhile firewall rules kept biting us as we’d realize something worked in ipv4 but not IPv6 but now I forget it’s even a thing really.

I once paid for a vpc host that was exclusively IPv6 and was shocked how many things broke. I was using it for a discord bot and the discord api didn’t even properly support IPv6 …

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

We turn it off in our office. It doesn’t benefit us.

You could also make the argument that ipv4 through NAT is better for privacy since it obfuscate what, and how many devices are connected to where.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

IPv6 has privacy addresses, though. Stuff on my network generates a new random address every day and uses that address for outgoing connections, so you can't really track individual devices inside my network.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

When I was first looking into IPv6, people were talking about how you can self-assign an address by simply wrapping an IPv6 address around your MAC address. But that practice seems to have fallen out of favour, and I'm guessing the reason is, as you say, the whole privacy thing? There's a lot of pushback these days against any tech that makes it easier to fingerprint your connection.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

That was so insane - "we need a unique number, let's just use the MAC" - it was like people didn't even think through any of the implications when making ipv6 address schemes.

Similar with the address proposals that ignored the need to minimise the size of core internet routing tables.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago

I try to force everything to use IPv6. It's a huge pain to support IPv4 as a selfhoster. I never had to specify an IP manually, DNS exists for a reason.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

People still use IPv4 because companies are slow to adopt new technologies. They see it as a huge money drain and if there is not a visible or tangible benefit to it then they won't invest in it. IPv6 is definitely a growing technology, it's just taking it's sweet time. For reference, currently the IPv4 has just under a million routes in the global routing table while IPv6 has ~216K routes. About 5 years ago it was something like 100K for IPv6 and not much has changed for IPv4.

I personally do not like the addressing of IPv6. It's not just the length, but now you have to use colons instead of period to separate the octets which leads to extra key strokes since I have to hold shift to type in a colon. It's a minor thing, but when networking is your bread and butter it adds up.

There are also some other concerns with IPv6. Since IPv6 tries to simplify routing by doing things like getting rid of NATing it also opens us up to more remote attacks. It used to be harder to target a specific user or PC that's behind a NATed IP but now everything is out in the open. I'm sure things will get better as more and more people use it and there will be changes made to the protocol however. It's just the natural evolution of technology.

I am very surprised to hear your ISP is not using IPv6. Seems like they're a little behind the times. Unless they just don't offer it to residential customers, which is still a bit behind the times too I guess.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

IPv6 has a policy of throwing more address space at stuff to make routing simpler, though.

IPv4 will individually route tiny slices of address space all over the world, IPv6 just assigns a massive chunk of space in the first place and calls it a day.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Iv6 doesn't try to simplify routing and remove nat. that's just how things work. Nat is a workaround for ipv4.

Ipv6 is around since 1998. that's not slow to adopt, at that point it is just plain refusal from some because of the costs you mentionend

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Ipv6 does simplify routing. It has less headers and therefore less overheard. IPv6 addressed the necessity of NAT by adding an obscene amount of possible IPs. Removing the necessity of NAT also simplifies routing as it's less that the router has to do.

Ipv6 as a concept was drafted in the 90s. It didn't start actually being seriously used until ~2006/7ish.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There are other benefits of NAT, besides address range. Putting devices behind a NAT is hugely beneficial for privacy and security.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

IPv6 has temporary IPs for privacy reasons. NAT is NOT a firewall. Setting up a real firewall is more secure and gives you more control without things like UPNP and NAT-PMP.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

IPv6 addressed the necessity of NAT by adding an obscene amount of possible IPs

that is correct but doesn't change the fact that nat came afterwards as a workaround und now the ip stack goes back to it's roots without a nat workaround.

It didn’t start actually being seriously used until ~2006/7ish.

true but still nowadays it isn't even slow anymore just refusal

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

that is correct but doesn’t change the fact that nat came afterwards as a workaround und now the ip stack goes back to it’s roots without a nat workaround.

And the end result is a simplification for routing.

true but still nowadays it isn’t even slow anymore just refusal

That's just the pace of large scale adoption of new technology. Look at some of the technologies the banking and financial industry uses as an example (ISO 8583 is a great example). ISP's still support T1 circuits as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 3 weeks ago

Mostly I’m scared I’ll write a firewall rule incorrectly and suddenly expose a bunch of internal infrastructure I thought wasn’t exposed.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›