←back to thread

Using the Internet without IPv4 connectivity

(jamesmcm.github.io)
296 points jmillikin | 1 comments | 29 Jun 25 08:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
ornornor ◴[29 Jun 25 16:05 UTC] No.44414147[source]▶
After all these years I still don’t see a compelling reason to spend days pulling my hair out switching all my machines and home lab to ipv6. I just find port forwarding and firewall rules more intuitive vs the prospect of spending weeks troubleshooting everything, reconfiguring firewalls, renunbering my network.

What am I missing?

replies(3): >>44414188 #>>44414221 #>>44414625 #
bigstrat2003 ◴[29 Jun 25 16:11 UTC] No.44414188[source]▶
You're missing that it's not that difficult. Unless you have a very complicated home network, setting up IPv6 should take you an evening tops. For my network and my ISP (Comcast), it's literally just turn on IPv6 in the router, it will pick up a prefix from the ISP and advertise it locally, then I add a firewall rule for whatever I want to be accessible from outside (which isn't much).
replies(1): >>44414803 #
1. nyrikki ◴[29 Jun 25 17:32 UTC] No.44414803[source]▶
The problem goes way back to the IPng days. With the project being designed by a committee who would choose random hills to die on, wasn't adaptive to new needs and used sticks more than carrots.

Some of those have been changed but typically after trying to implement it broke so many things that people just quit trying.

Some were well intended like the 'no NAT' in the days of FTP and before reverse proxies etc.

Others were intentional pain points to for adoption like when resolvers were not permitted to return A and forced to return AAAA records even when you ISP didn't support IPv6 etc...

Mix in problems like the max prefix size being too large for scanning a local network space to be practical etc... and people have been trained for decades that the pain is worse than any benefits.

Yes, today it isn't hard on small home networks where IPX will an IP gateway would also work fine, but things break as things get more complex.

Somewhere someone probably has a copy of the mail lists where I pointed out in around ~1996 that forcing globally unique IPs was a leaky abstraction and that there was more nuances and tradeoffs that needed to be considered.

It was obvious to me because I was stuck on a Altavisa firewall, but I was roasted.

On the IPv4 side, user needs were addressed through CIDR, carrier grade NAT, FTP passive connections etc...

I still tried to move companies to IPv6 a few more times and was bitten ever time.

Almost every time it was due to arbitrary global decisions, when they should have been focused on maintaining good will and making adoption as easy as possible.

The effort depended on a collition of the willing, and just changing 'must' to 'should' in key RFCs would have dramatically improved the chances of adoption.

I am actually glad you have an ISP that allows you to even do this, mine still does not.