[HN Gopher] AWS charge for using IPv4 expected to bring $1B/year...
___________________________________________________________________
AWS charge for using IPv4 expected to bring $1B/year and speed up
IPv6 adoption
Author : simonpure
Score : 181 points
Date : 2024-02-02 15:12 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| dboreham wrote:
| Adoption is limited by retail ISPs that refuse to roll out IPv6.
| But my AMZN stock thanks them.
| Filligree wrote:
| Mine has supported IPv6 for years-
|
| But I refuse to let them switch me, because their IPv6 offer
| does not include a v4 address, only CGNAT. Of course if
| everyone was on v6 that wouldn't matter, but until then I need
| the ability to forward ports to my server!
|
| This isn't even technically in breach of the ToS; I have a
| business line, mostly for the customer support.
|
| And thus I add to the problem, because now anyone who wants to
| connect to said server also needs a v4 option...
| antongribok wrote:
| I am honestly curious, what do you run on your server that
| you can't connect to with Tailscale?
| nfriedly wrote:
| Not the person you're asking, but hosting a game server is
| one example where you probably wouldn't want to go through
| Tailscale, due to the added latency. A Plex server might be
| another one if Tailscale has bandwidth limits. (I could be
| wrong here - I'm on a static IP, so I've never used
| Tailscale)
|
| Also, in general, it just adds a layer of complexity that I
| wouldn't want to deal with if I didn't have to.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > if Tailscale has bandwidth limits. (I could be wrong
| here - I'm on a static IP, so I've never used Tailscale)
|
| Tailscale connections are primarily peer to peer. The
| service Tailscale is providing is orchestrating the
| connectivity and hiding the complexity, but the data
| flows directly.
| zinekeller wrote:
| Except that P2P mode tends to simply not work in cases
| where both of the clients are in CGNAT networks (unless
| both of them happens to have IPv6 addresses). Even
| Tailscale acknowledges this sad fact
| (https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works#have-
| you-...) because in practice CGNAT operators deploy an
| endpoint-dependent NAT (aka symmetric NAT) without the
| possibility of port mapping.
| viraptor wrote:
| You can use Zerotier which doesn't have the problem. Some
| public nodes will assist with the nat traffic. It's not
| an ideal situation to be in and it's a bit slower, but at
| least it will work.
| Filligree wrote:
| SSH, fileserver, occasionally game servers.
|
| The internet is supposed to be peer-to-peer, and I
| shouldn't need third-parties in between my computers, or
| between my friends and me. Switching to IPv6 breaks the
| peer-to-peer nature of the internet.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| Funny. The whole point of IPv6 is to restore the globally
| addressable peer to peer nature of the Internet.
| lostapathy wrote:
| My current (Brightspeed) and previous (Spectrum) ISPs have
| nominally "supported" IPv6. Except ... not nationwide, there
| are regional differences in how it's done and how well it
| works. And nobody can tell me if my specific location is
| supported or how to configure my equipment to use it.
|
| On one hand, that gives me hope that we're getting closer to
| near-universal ISP support. On the other hand, it's been like
| this for so long I question if it'll ever improve.
| zokier wrote:
| Crusty enterprise networks are far bigger problem than retail
| ISPs. This is clearly visible by the fact that you have clear
| weekend peaks in e.g. Googles IPv6 adoption stats.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Maybe in 20 years my local ISP monopoly will start to roll out
| IPv6.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Mine rolled it out more than a decade ago, had nothing but
| problems, shrugged, and removed it.
|
| Sadly, I think they're more hesitant now.
| throw0101d wrote:
| Two days ago:
|
| * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39205515
| p1mrx wrote:
| Direct link to the list of IKEA products you can spell with an
| IPv6 address: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39209844
| ipshii wrote:
| What! that's insane! if true
| ramshanker wrote:
| I hope we see a not-so-subtle jump in usage on google ipv6
| tracker.
|
| https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
|
| Anecdote, my ISP gives us IPv6 but not my employer. We use the IT
| equipment till the last breadth. I have seen, permanent table-fan
| running towards Floor's network hub. I guess that one is NOT IPv6
| ready. :D
| wongarsu wrote:
| I doubt it. Realistically the AWS charge mostly causes
| companies to stop giving IPv4 addresses to servers that never
| directly talk to customers. As a knock-on effect this will
| cause tooling to become more IPv6 aware, and put pressure on
| SaaS in infrastructure monitoring and dev tooling to be
| reachable via IPv6 (for example this might cause github to
| finally fix their IPv6 game because of higher customer demand).
|
| Maybe companies use the same opportunity to make sure their
| services also work via IPv6. But they won't stop offering their
| services on IPv4, and AWS changes don't put meaningful pressure
| on ISPs to roll out IPv6. If anything it will reduce the
| pressure on the price of IPv4 addresses, making it more viable
| for ISPs to hold out.
| zinekeller wrote:
| > will cause tooling to become more IPv6 aware
|
| I doubt it, especially that there is an option of using
| private/CGNAT ranges instead of adopting a whole new
| protocol. Everyone who cares about IPv6 have already done
| their part, and people who don't care about it will likely
| use the lower-friction option, and between private IPv4
| networks and IPv6 I bet that a lot of people will see private
| IPv4 as a lower-friction option.
| zamadatix wrote:
| The tracker is for client connections to Google. To impact that
| graph AWS customers would have to, en masse, decide the $1/m
| charge is worth losing half their current users over and then
| the users and ISPs would have to scramble for IPv6.
|
| The more likely story is places using AWS pay 1$/m for a public
| address and use private/IPv6 internally. I.e. an incremental
| step, not a revolution in the chart.
| the8472 wrote:
| > losing half their current users
|
| IPv6 adoption is not uniformly distributed. Some usersbases
| might have higher penetration. But yeah, I doubt there are
| many where it's high enough to be worth it.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Maybe Amazon can start?
|
| https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/appl...
|
| > You can configure your Application Load Balancer so that
| clients can communicate with the load balancer using IPv4
| addresses only, or using both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
| (dualstack).
|
| I'd love to go IPv6 only. Amazon _won 't let me_, and charges for
| the privilege.
|
| Look at the list of "no"s on
| https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su....
| vander_elst wrote:
| Last time I checked GitHub was also an offender.
| troupe wrote:
| My guess is that going IPV6 only for load balancers would make
| it break for enough people that AWS thinks it would reflect
| poorly on their service.
| lolinder wrote:
| That seems unlikely given that the vast majority of users
| have no clue what the underlying service provider is for the
| web services they're using, and those who _do_ know are savvy
| enough to understand the difference between an AWS issue and
| a configuration issue.
| troupe wrote:
| Imagine if Cloudflare went to IPV6 only. Yes, Cloudflare's
| customers should know what that means, but the end users
| that are using the service may not be and if the error in
| anyway says Cloudflare, then it gives Cloudflare a bad
| reputation.
|
| While AWS is a bit (just a bit) more removed from the end
| user than Cloudflare, there is still the potential for it
| not being good PR.
| bluGill wrote:
| Cloudflare couldn't dare of IPv6 only until a lot more of
| the internet supports IPv6. They could however offer a
| discount of some sort to customers that are IPv6 only.
| That includes proxy your IPv6 only site to IPv4 (actually
| they would probably not give a discount directly, but let
| you apply discounts you get from your ISP)
| lolinder wrote:
| Cloudflare actually presents end users with an
| authentication page on a regular basis. AWS is strictly
| behind the scenes. The only time I've ever become aware
| that a site is using AWS is when reading their
| engineering blog or spelunking in the dev tools.
| elwebmaster wrote:
| These infinite verification prompts are the reason I no
| longer consider Cloudflare as an option for business use
| and would not recommend it to anyone. I know that they
| are configurable by the admins but they give bad PR to
| Cloudflare. I am not sure what this company was thinking
| associating itself with such a terrible user experience.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I agree and would first urge people to test IPv6 client
| access using some lazy-loaded image that is IPv6 only on
| their website. It should look like a normal resource so that
| false-negatives are not introduced by NoScript or uBlock.
|
| People can of course manually test here [1] from their homes,
| schools, work place. I would wager most cellular data
| networks would be fine. The impact would probably depend on
| how a website is utilized. Stats on mobile vs. non-mobile
| would probably be telling. The people on their cell should
| test LTE vs Wifi and clear cache between tests.
|
| [1] - https://test-ipv6.com/
| wongarsu wrote:
| But a load balancer doesn't have to be user-facing. It might
| just be fronting an internal API or microservice
| wongarsu wrote:
| Why would they, now that IPv4 brings in $1B/year
| pixl97 wrote:
| Cable ISPs have been doing this for years... want a static IP
| or multiple IPs? $$$.
|
| Want IPv6...... please hold forever.
| nfriedly wrote:
| I'm on metronet, which is a new-ish fiber optic ISP.
| They're exclusively IPv4 and they default everyone to CGNAT
| unless you call and complain - in that case you get a
| static IPv4 for free for a year and then $10/month after
| that (although another phone call usually gets another free
| year.)
|
| I specifically asked for IPv6 and was told they don't offer
| that.
| ilinx wrote:
| That's great to know. I'm literally watching them install
| in my neighborhood as I type this.
| nfriedly wrote:
| To be fair to metronet, aside from that and some hiccups
| during the initial install, I've been pretty happy with
| the service. The speed is fantastic, and it's been fairly
| reliable.
|
| The price keeps slowly going up, but that seems to be par
| for the course with ISPs.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| Admittedly, the time you know if a ISP is good or not
| isn't reached _until_ there's a problem. Because it's all
| about how they work with you to get it resolved.
| tw04 wrote:
| This isn't universally true. They've primarily expanded
| by acquiring other companies, and a few regions do have
| IPv6. Lansing, Michigan in particular which was
| previously Lightspeed.
|
| That being said, the CGNAT thing is just silly in 2023 -
| give us IPv6.
| smachiz wrote:
| they're still going to have to CGNAT 65% of your traffic
| that's IPv4 only.
| p_l wrote:
| At the very least they could use 4x6x4 instead of normal
| CGNAT, and bring down the costs.
| p1mrx wrote:
| 65% is a lot better than 100%.
|
| But the real number (at least on mobile networks) may be
| closer to 20%:
| https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/2018/state-of-
| ipv6...
| zokier wrote:
| Thats also six year old data; a lot has happened since,
| especially outside the US. For example european
| connectivity rate has doubled, and the top 1000 websites
| is close to 50% now which is also almost double that of
| 2018.
| themerone wrote:
| I've heard of at least one isp that is IPv6 only and
| tells customers to use whois to find someone to help them
| with sites that don't work.
| p1mrx wrote:
| [citation needed]
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I've gotten a /64 delegation from my cable ISP for almost
| a decade. There were some hiccups at first, but it's been
| working for a while now, to the point where I recognize
| issues with IPv4 as when my wife tells me "only Google
| and Netflix work"
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| They should be giving you a /56 or a /48 though, since
| you're not supposed to subnet a /64.
| viraptor wrote:
| This is now so common, I expect the common software to
| adjust soon. You can still subnet below /64 with some
| patching or a more complex config. Software will match
| reality it exists in - we already did that for classless
| ipv4 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_Inter-
| Domain_Routi...
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| Why though? Classless ipv4 solves a real problem, handing
| out /64's not
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I think I can reconfigure DHCPv6 for a /56 (IIRC I need
| to talk to a person if I want a /48) but I only currently
| have one network at home, so _shrug_.
| emeril wrote:
| I'm on Verizon FIOS - they rolled out IPv6 a couple years
| back and it was so poorly rolled out and communicated
| (i.e., lots of things/services were complete broken) that
| I fully disabled IPv6 on my router and don't intend to
| reenable it until I have to...
| StressedDev wrote:
| Comcast has supported IPv6 for approximately a decade.
| bluGill wrote:
| Weird, most cable ISPs that I know of have been IPv6. Last
| I checked in the US (pre pandemic) there is more IPv6
| nights and weekends than working hours by a lot because the
| Cable ISPs and cell phone companies rolled out IPv6 long
| ago, while companies mostly are behind. OF course you
| didn't say what country you are in - different countries
| have very different numbers.
| bpye wrote:
| Telus in Canada is a bit annoying. Residential connections
| get dynamic IPv4 and not-quite-static IPv6 /56 - I had the
| same prefix for about 6 months until some recent
| maintenance changed it.
|
| If you pay for a business connection you can get 1 or more
| static IPv4 addresses, but then you get no IPv6
| connectivity.
| thimp wrote:
| I reckon 20% of EC2 is NAT gateways with one instance behind
| them.
| szundi wrote:
| Why would this make sense?
| thimp wrote:
| I've configured at least 3 VPCs in the last decade which
| were exactly that.
|
| Literally one instance with VPC service endpoints
| deployed and an egress NAT gateway. Surprisingly common
| when you have a random shitbox which sucks data up from
| somewhere and doesn't fit within the constraints of a
| Lambda or something. They mostly exist to tick the
| compliance and architectural documents which are all
| under AWS "best practices".
|
| Note that I do not consider AWS "best practices" to be
| best practices necessarily. In fact a lot of time they
| are completely over-engineered against hypothetical
| scenarios which if they did happen, fixing some EC2
| integration shitbox would not even remotely be the first
| problem you had to worry about.
|
| But someone demands it and someone pays for it and Bezos
| ain't complaining so meh!
| richardw wrote:
| What about the dark web? It's already not trying to be too
| visible and I assume many participants would be happy to jump
| through hoops.
|
| Or something crypto. Pay to your IPv6 address, or nodes must be
| IPv6.
|
| Or social network.
|
| Start with an edge case that gets insiders to change behaviour.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| They barely got dual stack working for the more important
| services just recently, wouldn't expect ipv6 only for years.
| belter wrote:
| If they would, they could easily recover the money from the
| data transfer they charge on the Load Balancer.
|
| "Elastic Load Balancing pricing" -
| https://aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/pricing/
| p1mrx wrote:
| It's rather brave of them to publish the list of "no"s. I
| imagine that's helping to crack the whip on IPv6 support within
| the company.
| belter wrote:
| Speaking of...
|
| "AWS Free Tier now includes 750 hours of free Public IPv4
| addresses, as charges for Public IPv4 begin"-
| https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2024/02/aws-free-...
| dark-star wrote:
| Awesome move. It's about time!
|
| This might give IPv6 the final push it needs to convince the last
| few ISPs who are still stuck on IPv4-only
| zanfr wrote:
| there is no clear benefit to most users tho
| mjhay wrote:
| In the US, usually not - but the US is comparatively spoiled
| for IPv4 blocks. It's pretty common in a lot of places for
| ISP customers to share public-facing IPs. This causes all
| sorts of issues with people being unfairly spam blacklisted,
| etc.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
| nfriedly wrote:
| Even my (US) ISP defaults everyone to CGNAT.
| redserk wrote:
| Households with multiple Nintendo Switch and _I think_ the
| PS5 consoles (I may be mixing this up with Xbox) would
| significantly benefit.
|
| Some games assume there's only one console per public IP, and
| expects ports NAT forwarded as such.
|
| Giving each end-user an IPv6 prefix completely solves that
| mess.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Up until the games start limiting things to a single IPv6
| prefix, of course.
| Qwertious wrote:
| It makes setting up a home server much easier, because you
| can get infinite free static IPs.
|
| That doesn't contradict that "most users" don't benefit,
| though.
| massysett wrote:
| How is it any more static than v4? Network providers can
| still provide dynamic addresses with v6.
| bluGill wrote:
| There is benefit to ISPs, and has many other ISPs and cell
| companies have shown the world is ready and most people won't
| even notice if you give them IPv6 - their computers will
| notice and start using it.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| At what point do these numbers start to be like a crypto
| currency? But one with real utility?
| bluGill wrote:
| They already are, but it is a risky investment - the higher the
| price goes the more people switch to IPv6 and thus the lower
| the value goes. Eventually there will be a tipping point where
| people realize they don't care about IPv4 and quickly the value
| will go to zero.
| lightweb wrote:
| Check this out. IPV6 integrated with Bitcoin generated
| addressing. Every packet gets a unique address. Security
| implications are profound.
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.15842.pdf
| mrweasel wrote:
| This could also slow down IPv6 adoption. This is going to free up
| a ton of IPv4 addresses, reducing the need for AWS to purchase
| new ranges. I know of a few companies that started auditing their
| public IPv4 usage on AWS after the original announcement.
|
| Some AWS customers have released 80+% of their public IPv4
| addresses. The alternative isn't IPv6, it's private addresses.
| Many AWS customers have been slapping public IPs on EC2 instance
| just because they could or because they didn't know any better.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Customers having to switch to private addressing still seems
| like more pressure than customers having infinite free public
| addresses was providing, not less.
|
| I.e. address exhaustion pressure isn't only about the complete
| inability to buy an IP it's about how much work you have to do
| to use IPv4 addresses.
| wongarsu wrote:
| It depends on how you measure IPv6 adoption. Is it about your
| ability as consumer to use only IPv6, or your ability to
| offer a website reachable only via IPv6.
|
| AWS charging for IPv4 will help with the former, because
| companies now have more of a reason to care about IPv6. But
| it might delay the latter, because fewer IPs wasted on
| internal servers means less price pressure on useful IPv4 use
| by ISPs, giving those that still hold out less financial
| incentive to change anything.
| kees99 wrote:
| IMHO, best way to measure IPv6 adoption would be - what
| percentage of your website's visitors are able to reach
| your IPv6-only site.
|
| That percentage should be well above 99% for a popular
| website operator to even consider going IPv6-only; needless
| to say, in most markets, this figure is way lower, with no
| clear path to improving.
| eastbound wrote:
| It doesn't help that, if you enable IPv6 in Debian, the
| network becomes extremely slow for many things. The
| reason? If first tries to reach all domains with IPv6,
| times out, then use IPv4. Of course that's because I
| didn't successfully configure IPv6 with the network, but
| on the other hand, IPv4 only was successful at first try.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| But this is also AWS exerting price pressure on its
| customers. This move is an increase in price pressure, not
| a decrease.
|
| If everything host on AWS becomes dual stack and gets first
| class IPv6 support after this move, that's a win for IPv6.
|
| The price for v4 address is going to bob up and down as
| more networks and content providers adopt v6 and are able
| to reduce their public v4 usage to just their edges.
|
| There will definitely be a long tail of v4, especially in
| the corporate world, but I think we'll get to 90-95% v6
| capable within the next 5-10 year
| sgjohnson wrote:
| AWS owns about 7% of the entire public IPv4 allocation space.
| There's no way this is going to slow down IPv6 adoption. Nobody
| likes NAT, especially when it comes to servers.
| jerf wrote:
| "This is going to free up a ton of IPv4 addresses, reducing the
| need for AWS to purchase new ranges."
|
| Yup, this has been obvious for a while if you read the better
| economic analyses. Charging for IPv4 doesn't on its own remove
| it. It creates some sort of economic balance between the value
| and scarcity of the IPv4 address space.
|
| When you're trying to fit the entire world of 7 billion people
| into 4 billion addresses, the space looks pretty scarce. But
| assuming a roughly power law distribution of services and their
| importance of being on IPv4, as you cut off the people with
| lower-end needs, like, "my cell phone needs to communicate on
| the internet so let's give it an IPv4 address", you _extremely
| rapidly_ cut through orders of magnitude of the old uses.
|
| That long tail of "Facebook is not willing to cut off even .01%
| of its user base so it has IPv4 addresses to serve on" may take
| a long time to get through, but we're well through getting huge
| swathes of the other users off of it.
|
| What kills IPv4 is in the far future when the expense of
| maintaining it specially exceeds the benefits. Since
| maintaining it is rather cheap, this is going to take a while.
| But as IPv4 diminishes in importance, ironically, so does the
| value of entirely eliminating it. When it is 1% of the traffic,
| who will really be desperate to drop that to zero?
| bluGill wrote:
| Thing is if it is only 0.01% of users Facebook won't give up
| on they can just do a few ipv4 server/address. Now Facebook
| has severs around the world, but if it is only a few users
| they just need two servers - and that is only for redundancy.
| Now they have thousands (maybe even millions? I don't know)
| of servers and they may as well give all the external facing
| ones IPv4 addresses as most need that anyway and so the
| hassle of maintaining IPv6 only servers isn't worth it.
|
| And of course if you are in the 0.01% you will discover that
| while Facebook and google won't give up on you many other
| providers will as it just isn't worth the cost. By that time
| the cost won't be IPv4 addresses - they will be again free -
| it will be the cost of maintaining IPv4 on all the routers
| and servers. (the routers mean IPv4 will cost more, but it
| won't be for the address it will be for routing access)
| sva_ wrote:
| > entire world of 7 billion people
|
| Should be more like 8bn now
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| > When it is 1% of the traffic, who will really be desperate
| to drop that to zero?
|
| The service providers who have to maintain IPv4 and IPv6
| configurations in their networks.
| zokier wrote:
| I don't find it at all difficult to imagine that someone like
| Google or Apple would sunset ipv4 when it reaches single
| digit percentage. They know no ISP would risk losing
| connectivity to them.
|
| For example Apple has already been requiring that appstore
| apps work in ipv6 only networks _since 2016_. They can just
| keep tightening such rules until ipv4 dies.
|
| It's naive to think that maintaining ipv4 (/dualstack)
| networks is (and will remain) cheap at large global scale
| like Google.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _The alternative isn 't IPv6, it's private addresses._
|
| I really wish more AWS services or workflows worked with
| private addresses. Sometimes a service can be completely
| internal but needs a public address to either talk to Dynamo or
| install packages; but those endpoints aren't available via
| private IP, even though they physically live in the same region
| paulddraper wrote:
| Why?
| nemothekid wrote:
| I really don't care about IPv6 or IPv4. In my neck of the
| woods, 10.0.0.0/8 is more than I would ever need. Most
| architectures I've seen only realistically need only a
| handful of public IPs, that then are assigned to a load
| balancer that does service discovery on internal services.
| I don't think about IP addresses at all.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Yeah but then you have to futz around with NAT.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Today you have to futz around with NAT, but you wouldn't
| have to if you simply never made any connections to the
| public internet. And for many services that's completely
| fine.
| coredog64 wrote:
| I believe the latest version of the VPC wizard defaults to
| gateway endpoints for both S3 and DynamoDB.
|
| If you're in a 6-only VPC/subnet, an egress only gateway will
| allow you to grab packages from IPv6 enabled public data
| sources.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Correct. I am convinced that the best way to speed up IPv6
| adoption is to provide IPv6-only networking but with NAT64.
|
| Historical evidence is on this: cell phone ISPs have started
| doing this a long time ago and look at how high the IPv6
| adoption is on mobile.
|
| Also, an IPv6-only network removes the happy eyeballs algorithm
| so any routing issues on the IPv6 internet won't be papered
| over by the speed of the IPv4 internet, so there's more
| incentive to fix that.
|
| (If you are interested in doing this at home, the most up-to-
| date documentation is a presentation from RIPE
| https://ripe87.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/8-I...
| that covers NAT64/DNS64/DHCP108/PREF64).
|
| Of course everything I said above is conditioned on speeding up
| IPv6 adoption as a goal. Unfortunately for many, IPv6 adoption
| is not a goal at all, so nothing I said above applies to them.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Don't forget about MAP-T which does IPv4 NAT over IPv6. The
| client is IPv4, the ISP is IPv6, and server is IPv4. This is
| still CGNAT but IPv6 is provided. But means ISP uses IPv6
| internally.
|
| The problem for NAT64 in general use is that there is lots of
| IPv4-only software. NAT64 is great for business networks
| where control the software, but home users are going to try
| to use their Xbox 360 or Windows game from the 90s.
| zanfr wrote:
| while I could set up v6 I just wont for a while... when I do I
| expect things to be better documented
| wongarsu wrote:
| I've defaulted to setting up v6, but deactivating it once it
| causes trouble. I don't want to actively sink time into it, but
| in 95% it just works out of the box (or with obvious config
| changes, like adding an IPv6 listening port and an AAAA DNS
| entry), and in those cases I'm happy to let it stay until it
| causes trouble.
|
| In another 10 years it's probably worth putting more effort
| into the other cases as well, but so far I'm happy with getting
| 80% of the way there for 0.1% of the effort.
| wharvle wrote:
| Yeah, IPv6 is shut off on my Google Fiber router. Stuff on
| the Internet breaks when it's on (last tested three or so
| months back when they sent me a new router).
|
| When we first got Fiber, years ago, Amazon's store was one of
| the things that broke until I turned off IPv6. Wouldn't load
| at all, on any device on our network.
|
| Works fine for VPNs and such, but I don't talk to the
| Internet with it, because my experience has been it's
| terribly unreliable.
| vel0city wrote:
| I'm curious what breaks with IPv6 on. I've been running
| IPv6 dual stack for over a decade at home and pretty much
| never have any issues. I think I've run into a prefix
| change get bugged on my router's announcements that
| required a reboot, but that's like 2 times in the last 10+
| years and I'm not 100% sure that was truly the issue. My
| phone is pretty much always has an IPv6 address and pretty
| much never has IP-related connectivity problems. I'm not
| using Google Fiber's router though, so that could be the
| complication.
| wharvle wrote:
| The typical behavior is that DNS returns an IPv6 address,
| then whatever-it-is sits there until a timeout, because
| it's simply not being routed. I've not investigated
| further because turning off IPv6 fixes the problem and
| breaks nothing (that I care about). Anything that only
| returns an IPv4 address from DNS works either way.
|
| My cellular connection supports IPv6, but testing sites
| report it's misconfigured in a bunch of ways. I don't see
| problems in practice, though. But on my home network,
| it's turned off.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > because it's simply not being routed
|
| Well if you don't actually have IPv6, and you're turning
| off a broken ghost of IPv6, that's very reasonable.
|
| But in that case it confuses people when you call that
| "turning off IPv6".
| wharvle wrote:
| _Shrug_ Google's router thinks I have it. And it's on by
| default.
| vel0city wrote:
| This is what I was thinking about with the prefix issue.
| I've encountered this issue like twice and rebooting my
| router ended up with a different prefix, so it seems more
| like my router just didn't get the new prefix and thus
| kept handing out the old prefix to everyone with SLAAC
| and thus wouldn't get routed right.
| j4yav wrote:
| They should donate the billion to projects that accelerate the
| transition.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Only when companies (who are for profit), and ISPs (who are for
| profit) buy new hardware, and config it for ipv6, will change
| come.
|
| Projects aren't the real problem.
| idatum wrote:
| For my ISP, it's not just about the hardware, it's their
| provisioning software that needed replacing. It has to be
| simple for their support to understand how IPv6 is given to
| customers.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| IPv6 has been around for 30 years and well supported by
| switching and routing vendors for 20. What hardware is out
| there today that does not support v6?
| nromiun wrote:
| If anyone wants to use GitHub from their IPv6 only VMs I would
| recommend a SSH reverse tunnel. It works like this:
| https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/116191/give-server-...
| zokier wrote:
| You don't actually need ssh tunnel here though, you can just
| connect directly to the proxy server?
| nromiun wrote:
| In this case the PC is the proxy, which sometimes does not
| have a public IP address (behind ISP NAT).
| p1mrx wrote:
| Some sort of NAT64 is probably a better idea, because that
| applies below the TLS layer.
|
| When people complain about IPv6 and IPv4 being incompatible,
| the fact that you can establish a cross-protocol TCP+TLS
| session with just a NAT is a remarkable counterexample. It
| could've been a lot worse.
| zokier wrote:
| Sure, there never was a shortage of different ipv4/ipv6
| transition/interop mechanisms. Problem has been that many
| of them haven't been all that great, and understanding the
| use-cases, compromises, and tradeoffs between the options
| can be very difficult, especially when vendors and
| operators like to tout their own tech.
|
| To this day I'm not sure what are the best options
| available now for different scenarios.
| 4rd/MAP-T/MAP-E/464XLAT/Dslite, nat64/siit/a+p, these
| things are enough to get your head spinning
| p1mrx wrote:
| "Reality has a surprising amount of detail"
| ianburrell wrote:
| The transition mechanisms that need to worry about now
| are NAT64, MAP-T, and XLAT. Only the first do you have to
| worry about setting up unless you are ISP. The rest are
| obsolete.
|
| NAT64 is used for IPv6-only networks to talk to IPv4. It
| puts the IPv4 address in the IPv6 address. The downside
| is that doesn't work with old IPv4-only software.
|
| XLAT is used on mobile phones, and does the translation
| on the device. It only works for devices where translator
| can be installed.
|
| MAP-T can be used for IPv6 ISP to provide IPv4 access. It
| is basically CGNAT but using IPv6 as stateless transport.
| ianburrell wrote:
| AWS NAT Gateways support NAT64/DNS64. I'm not sure if it is
| on by default or have to enable it.
|
| You have to pay for it, but paying for NAT Gateway for
| IPv4.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| why isn't github accessible through ipv6 without a reverse
| tunnel?
| wmf wrote:
| Extreme laziness.
| yesimahuman wrote:
| Hoping this lights a fire under other AWS wrappers like Heroku
| and Vercel to support IPv6. Currently dealing with the fallout of
| the Supabase IPv6 change and frustrated that two of my core
| vendors still don't support it.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| >expected to bring $1B/year
|
| Yes.
|
| >and speed up IPv6
|
| Fucking lol. It's still not enough of a financial hit for people
| to want to deal with IPv6.
|
| Should have just come up with a better protocol in the first
| place. That's what really would have stimulated adoption.
| Borg3 wrote:
| Something like this? http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6
| sgjohnson wrote:
| > keep ARP, ND wasn't a great idea after all
|
| there's nothing wrong with ND and it addresses several
| security vulnerabilities, namely ARP cache poisoning. But the
| real reason why ARP was removed is because it's a layering
| violation.
|
| > NAT support (because it's everywhere these days)
|
| nothing at all is stopping you from doing NAT on IPv6, except
| for the fact that everyone hates NAT, even people that
| pretend that they like it.
|
| > Correct DHCP support (SLAAC wasn't a great idea after all)
|
| SLAAC is a great thing. Also, DHCPv6 also exists, which
| allows you to do exactly what DHCP lets you do. Android
| doesn't support DHCPv6, but that's not IPv6s fault.
|
| - IPv6->IPv4 interop (one way)
|
| There's no such thing as one-way communication if we're
| talking TCP. Besides, it's still fundamentally impossible if
| the other end has no idea what to do with the source address.
| betaby wrote:
| DHCPv6 doesn't support dhcpv6 forwarding though like dhcpv4
| does. One can't forward dhcpv6 request over multiple ipv6
| hops, only hop-by-hop forwarding supported to my knowledge.
| Borg3 wrote:
| There are several IPv6 -> IPv4 interops (bridges) developed
| already. All of them appeard due to slow IPv6 adoption.
| Some of them are: NAT64, XLAT6, DS-Lite.
|
| Never heard about ND tables overflows? They fixed one
| thing, broken another. ARP poisoning is mostly fixed
| problem.
|
| I like NAT myself. Im dualhomed (el-cheapo), using policy
| routing and NAT. Everything works like a charm. I cant
| imagine such setup w/o NAT actually.
|
| SLAAC might be great thing for you, but not for others.
| This is why IPv6 is such a failure. Instead of creating
| simple protocol to meet middle ground, they slapped
| together annoying techs for specific cases like IoT. Great
| job.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| > I cant imagine such setup w/o NAT actually.
|
| If you had a /24 of v4, you easily could.
|
| > SLAAC might be great thing for you, but not for others.
|
| [citation needed]
| Borg3 wrote:
| Haha, right.. eBGP session to home customer.. Other
| solution would be /24 + VPS provider + eBGP session with
| them. Kinda overkill for me.
| icedchai wrote:
| If you know IPv4 networking, you can learn v6 in a day or two.
| It's just not that complicated. Some aspects, like no need for
| NAT, easier subnet calculations, etc. make V6 simpler to
| deploy. What's wrong with it? What would make it "better"? I've
| been running V6 at home for over 15 years (first on a tunnel,
| then native.) In a professional context, I am still running
| into people afraid to turn it on.
| nimbius wrote:
| imo the 'static' ip issue with ipv6 has not been solved by
| providers. cable internet cabals are content to use dhcpv6 to
| dole prefixes out, but these are the same providers whos DNS
| servers typically post four-digit latency figures for DNS queries
| so the idea they they are to be the ones to solve DHCPv4's
| scalability issues remains laughable. just _try_ getting a
| statically assigned prefix from their "business" or "corporate"
| offerings. wont happen.
|
| SLAAC is the best hope so far, but regular hosted customers do
| not understand that slaac is calculated by mac, so theyll need
| education to ensure immutable architectures dont crash and burn
| on lift-and-shift redeployments. either that, or enjoy hardcoding
| ip's in your prefix to the boxes.
|
| then theres networking. most corporate network engineering that
| would handle ingress or peer traffic to clouds (especially azure
| tenants) treat ipv6 as a cursory knowledge...something theyre
| aware of in theory but have never taken it upon themselves to
| practice. i predict AWS will send a lot of them scrambling for
| mouldy ccna texts and taking down the hybrid cloud at least twice
| a month until the basics sink in.
|
| and finally, firewall and security devices. There are a lot of
| vendors that have gotten a free pass to grandstand about how
| stellar their IPv6 support is, only to send customers to phone
| tree purgatory trying to find support for a device that either
| cant route between local, unique local, special purpose ranges,
| ::1, or even the special discard ranges for things like DDoS
| protection. frankly its not an AWS issue (yet) but the only guise
| ive seen handle this competently are...cloudflare.
| cdelsolar wrote:
| I still have no idea what IPv6 actually is or how it works, or
| how a router can be IPv4 or IPv6 only, etc.
| p1mrx wrote:
| By what method did you learn what IPv4 is and how it works?
| szundi wrote:
| How nice they are to move the world forward, thanks
| dpedu wrote:
| Could anybody recommend a book for learning IPv6? I know there
| are plenty out there, but what are the best, HN's
| recommendations? I get the general concepts and I use it on
| personal systems but I've spent too long just skirting by. It's
| time for a deep dive. I think the best type of book to learn from
| would have a mix of textbook knowledge and practical
| examples/demos.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| The CCENT and CCNA certification books have chapters dedicated
| to IPv6 and I think they do a good job talking about it.
|
| edit: Some little tips about it.
|
| * The smallest subnet should be /64. Anyone making a smaller
| subnet than that is doing it wrong (looking at you, _every ISP
| that assigns me an address_ )
|
| * Subnets should be created in four-bit chunks. You should
| always make /64, /60, /56, etc. for readability. That's because
| 4 bits make up one hex character in the address.
|
| * If you want to have private (non-internet-routable) IPv6
| space, create a ULA. https://www.unique-local-ipv6.com/ Imagine
| never having to worry about address overlap with VPNs or
| routing between two internal networks.
| exabrial wrote:
| What benefit does ipv6 bring to the every day user?
| matja wrote:
| What's an "every day user"?
|
| Maybe some P2P applications will magically start working or
| have lower startup time because of no need for STUN/TURN/ICE
| for NAT traversal.
| aquaticsunset wrote:
| Their devices continue to work when a scarce resource is no
| longer plentiful. The every day user doesn't need to care, but
| the people working on the stuff the every day user has need to
| care.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| AWS fees are $3.6/mo. Not to defend AWS, but Verizon business
| wanted $20/mo for a static public IP address.
| linux_devil wrote:
| Aws Kinesis and other services dont even support IPV6 to start
| with , how are they speeding up IPV6 adoption
| ckdarby wrote:
| My hope was they'd charge for the IPs, but would drop the cost of
| NATs.
|
| I can't believe the cost of NATs! If you're running in triple AZs
| that is 3 nats you're paying for.
| simpsond wrote:
| You can technically route through one if you can tolerate that.
| But I agree. They just got more expensive.
| krupan wrote:
| People, IPv6 was introduced 28 years ago! For some reason it is
| not catching on and probably never will. Let's try something
| else.
|
| EDIT: my take on IPv6 is this. In the early 2000's I wanted to
| run a web server at home. Figuring out how to make my $10
| gateway/router do port forwarding was hard. IPv6 sounded like the
| right solution. Now... none of those problems really exist
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| 64 bits is too many bits. honestly could have slapped a
| country+area code in front and gained a few hundred IPv4
| addresses per person.
| lajamerr wrote:
| 128 bits*
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| > For some reason it is not catching on and probably never
| will.
|
| If a major player is making $1B out of it "not catching on", I
| agree it never will.
| jsz0 wrote:
| IPv6 has been such a wild ride. About 7 years ago there was a big
| IPv4 depletion scare when ARIN made it harder to obtain IPv4. I
| did a bunch of dual stack deployments for customers around this
| time. In subsequent years quite a few of them ended up paying us
| to come back in and un-deploy IPv6 as their network engineers or
| often 'the IT guy' neglected to maintain firewall rules and
| access-lists leading to major security issues. I can't really
| think of any other vital technology like this that has rotted on
| the vine and had so many false starts.
| jrockway wrote:
| I am not sure if these incentives help IPv6 adoption. Nobody can
| turn off IPv4 today; there is always a long tail of people with
| broken IPv6 stacks. Since IPv4 continues to work, I'm not even
| sure it's worth setting up IPv6 so that someday you can switch
| IPv4 off; do work that gets you customers today, switch off of
| IPv4 when it becomes a crisis. I think the best incentive would
| be a high price on IPv4-only, but if you do the work to support
| dual-stack, then that fee is waived. That way, there is savings
| for doing the technical work today, and you pave the way for a
| brighter future.
|
| Personally, I think I'd pay the fee to not be dual stack these
| days. Everything in your infrastructure has to now check two
| things. Your website uptime checker has to probe via both IPv4
| and IPv6. You have to maintain two sets of firewall rules. You
| have to remember to "ping -6 example.com" in addition to "ping
| example.com" when checking connectivity. I don't think it's worth
| the effort, and I say that as someone who first made their
| website available over IPv6 in like 2008. (I moved providers in
| 2020 and the new one didn't have IPv6. It made me sad. But now
| it's just one less thing to worry about.)
| viraptor wrote:
| > Nobody can turn off IPv4 today
|
| ... for all services.
|
| There are internal servers talking to other servers which don't
| need ipv4. There's zerotier that gives you a private IPv6
| network regardless of your network capabilities. The only part
| that actually still requires ipv4 is the general public user.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Sure, but internal servers talking to internal servers can
| also do so on private IPv4s, which are free.
|
| So, no need to bother with IPv6 and its myriad complexities
| just for that.
| viraptor wrote:
| Not always. Sometimes you talk between different providers,
| or to private endpoints on other services. Or its simpler
| use IPv6 between two networks rather than keep a global
| list of ipv4 ranges to make sure they don't collide.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Using IPv6 also comes along with many other complexities.
| If you already have a working IPv4 solution, working
| around costly public IPv4 addresses is likely much easier
| than trying to switch to IPv6 and having to adapt every
| part of your infrastructure to the many surprising ways
| it's different.
| CaffeinatedDev wrote:
| Amazon itself is a large user of AWS, is this taken into account
| when surmising the $1B/year figure?
| beoberha wrote:
| I wonder how much of the IPv4 space is used for infra that could
| just be privately addressed with some reworking of network
| topology.
|
| I find these articles on HN focus much more heavily on consumer
| use of IPv4 for simple things like web browsing. But not a lot of
| consideration is paid to massive corporate systems and API
| surfaces. Would be interesting to know.
| josteink wrote:
| Sorry for being off-topic, but the utterly lacking IPv6
| availability (still!) annoys me so much.
|
| I know IPv6. I can route it. I can setup networks with it. And my
| ISP supports it, but just kinda. For some arcane reason, it only
| supports it for some types of transport.
|
| Got Cable/Coax internet? Great! You get IPv6 and a subnet too!
|
| Got Fiber to the Home? You get IPv4. And no subnet.
|
| I'm in the latter segment, and I just don't get it.
|
| The ISP in question is Telia, a pretty big ISP in Scandinavia. If
| someone in the know-how could tell me at least _why_ they 're
| doing things like this, that might offer some mental consolation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-02 23:01 UTC)