Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mrsssnake's commentslogin

> is for faceless hordes of cellphones

How could we determine which device on mobile network is a faceless cellphone and which is a proper device needing real sweet Internet connection? And won't that make things more complicated than just v6 deployment?

Can argue that NAT, which interrupt layers ment for end device do basically the same as popular user hostinle unchangable mobile OSes, but I don't think latter is good either.


> The truth is, IPv6 is really 64bit, the other 64bit part is just randomish node address...

So anyway it gives 128bits in total, 64 for network and 64 for node.

But I wish there was a better way to write just the local node part and global part being taken automatically.


> NAT and CGNAT are not sins

Highly disagree. Middleboxes are a huge problem on global scale and have frozen any innovation below application layer. TCP and UDP even that they are on software not hardware layer cannot be updated or changed, see MPTCP efforts or QUIC giving up and building on top of UDP.

If this is so much privacy problem, IPv6 is there for many years reaching 50%+ deployments in some countries, I bet there should be concrete examples of such breaches and papers written.

> Reaching your own stuff is already a solved problem, too. Tailscale/Headscale

No address to receive communication - no problem install an app that would proxy it through someone who has the address. Tailscale/Headscale is great, using it daily, but they are not solution to the huge already build global network created to connect devices not connecting devices because lack of digits. Global is key here.


I also know your IPv6 address, ::1

Even easier.


My work guest WiFi network allows only IPv4 HTTPS on port 443 and their their own DNS. Everything else, including ICMP (ping) is blocked. Tailscale barely works as any persistant connection is dropped after 2-3 minutes.

Called this out and the security team said noone complains, that there is no use case and they do not want to deal with security risks.

And the ossification continues.


> Called this out and the security team said noone complains

Classic. And this probably works do every complaint. You need an irritated executive.


> IPv4 HTTPS on port 443

TCP or TCP and UDP?

SSTP can work if they don't look at the traffic too hard.


A TCP over websockets VPN would be fairly simple to write, or ask an AI to write for you

Even without CGNAT you'll only get one IPv4 address forcing a absurd amount of workarounds to be usable, that are mostly hidden in firmwares but sill there.

Much less pain than people wanting to have something you could connect to would experience.

Dual stack IPv4+IPv6 is still the easiest, but at least the author learned a lot and it helps finding issues in software.

> able to run ~340 undecillion devices on my home network

You now can have these devices connected to network called Internet.

Unlike IPv4 were the number of devices on the Internet in home network is one (the main router) or zero (in case if CGNAT) and the others just pretend.



Thanks for sharing this! Every few years, i forget the "why" advantage of IPv6. :-)

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: