Comment by throw0101d | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101d | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Then IPv6 traffic could pass over IPv4 networks without any changes. The only constraint would be that each IPv6 network would have to have an IPv4 "gateway" address.

So:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6in4

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISATAP

You can sign up for an IPv6 connection, without any IPv6 support from your ISP, via Hurricane Electric's tunnel service:

* https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/IPv6_tunnel_broker_setup

* https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/ipv6-tunn...

It's been around for at least a decade:

* https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2014/01/weekend-project...

Any 'expanded IPv4 address' solution will (have) face the same problems that IPv6 has faced, and the solutions will end up being the same: having to slowly upgrade the network stack (hosts, routers, firewalls, ASICs), changes in networking system calls and associated structs (because the number of bits), gateways and transitions mechanisms, expansion of related protocols (DNS A records are only 32-bits, so a new record type needs to be supports (e.g., AAAA for IPv6, AAAAAA for your new proposal)).

If you want to argue that we should have (say) kept ARP instead of moving NDP, sure.

But anything to do with expanded addressing would be the exact situation: code upgrades and transition mechanisms.

> It's been around for at least a decade

I just logged into tunnelbroker.net to check: my HE account has been registered November 22, 2010 11:30:00 UTC. Today it's unused because IPv6 is basically always available in France.

That's not even the first time I tried IPv6 things, part of it being I had some access to RENATER via my engineering school, right when they kicked off IPv6 around 2002.

The past 10 years of IPv6 have been largely uneventful for me: it just works.

> The past 10 years of IPv6 have been largely uneventful for me: it just works.

Yeah, ditto. Except that it has been more like twenty than ten for me.

From my he.net tunnel, to (several years later) my Comcast-provided native IPv6 service, to IPv6 on my phone, to IPv6 with my local ISP (once I switched off of Comcast/NBCUniversal) it has been so very, very boring and reliable for so many years.

I didn't have IPv6 available from the sole (land-based) ISP who offered service at my last house, Altice USA (Suddenlink/Optimum).

I moved away about 13 months ago.

(Worse yet their modem/router did RAs or whatever but there was no connectivity out)

The past 10 years of IPv6 have been largely uneventful for me: it just doesn't work.

> The past 10 years of IPv6 have been largely uneventful for me: it just doesn't work.*

IPv6 worked "too well" for me: a while ago I was web surfing I had all those little Facebook icons show up that were served from their web site, probably dropping cookies on my system. I didn't want that so I put FB's domain in my hosts(5) file so that it go to "0.0.0.0": the little icons went away.

Then suddenly they appeared. And I checked hosts to make sure things were still there, and I did web browser debugging to see if things changed in the HTML.

And then I remembered that my ISP had activated IPv6, and so the icons were coming from FB's IPv6 address. Once I added "::1" for FB in my hosts file the icons disappeared again.

Someone please prove me wrong, but afaik HE's tunnelbroker requires a sane IPv4 environment, i.e. doesn't work with CGNAT. I'd love to keep using it but since we switched ISPs to one using CGNAT I don't think I can use tunnelbroker.

We switched ISPs so we could get better than 6/.768Mbps DSL w/60ms ping. Now we are on 15/2 fixed wireless w/20ms ping and CGNAT.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com