My home ISP is having an outage this morning, it's only effecting the ipv4 stack, I can still get to anything on ipv6, which is still an embarrassingly small set of things.
I remember at university 20 years ago being told ipv6 would take over very soon, but I guess just NATing everything was so much simpler.
#ipv4 #ipv6 #waveofthefuture #WorldOfTomorrow #outage #sysadmin
Brian Hawthorne
in reply to GNU/Matt • • •GNU/Matt
in reply to Brian Hawthorne • • •Jima
in reply to GNU/Matt • • •silverwizard likes this.
Brian Hawthorne
in reply to Jima • • •Sorry, absolutely a lazy hot take, but not intended to be disingenuous. I keep forgetting that not everyone was around when IPv6 was being proposed. At the time, when the IPv4 space still seemed vast, there were significant questions raised as to why we needed more IP addresses than there were people on earth.
At the time, an argument from Moore’s law was made (sorry, I don’t remember who originally made it) that at the rate of change, eventually we could expect every lightbulb to be IP-connected. That seemed far fetched at the time, before all but a few early adopter homes even had IP connectivity. But the argument was persuasive, and turned out to be factual.
But, because IPv6 took so long to be finalized and implemented, NAT came along and nearly every home uses the IPv4 192.168 block for its devices, relieving the pressure on the remaining net blocks.
In my somewhat flippant reply, I neglected to make clear that those routers were implementing NAT.
I proffer my sincere apologies for a vague and poorly worded post. But I also object to the description of it as lacking candor.
Jima
in reply to Brian Hawthorne • • •The disingenuity is largely the implication that IPv6 inherently facilitates reachability (re: "on the public Internet"), and that "we" collectively realized anything of the sort...you do know that #IPv6 adoption continues to rise, year after year, right? 🤨
"At the time, when the IPv4 space still seemed vast"
When was this? The folks doing the math started ringing the alarm bells in the 1992-1993 range — IPv4 exhaustion wasn't a surprise attack.
Jima
in reply to Jima • • •Brian Hawthorne
in reply to Jima • • •I’m not the one who is hyperfixated on my harmless, and apparently-not-to-you amusing historical anecdote that I already apologized for and deleted.
Thanks for playing.
#toodles
Jima
in reply to Jima • • •Ah, reply then block. Classy.
Ignorant infosec hot takes on #IPv6 are not harmless; they cause v6 to be relegated to this "never gonna happen" notion in people's minds, that doesn't reflect current industry reality, and reenforces the market conditions that cost everyone more time and money in the long run.
But by all means, go mend your hurt feelings that people didn't love your toot. 🙄
sep
in reply to Jima • • •Jima reshared this.
Jima
in reply to sep • • •silverwizard
in reply to sep • •Jima reshared this.
sep
in reply to silverwizard • • •I was once an accomplice in moving a network (4 hosts and a printer) from a public, but with acl ip space network to a private space network behind a PIX nat firewall. It seemed wrong at the time, I felt dirty...
Now I am working to put networks back to public #IPv6 addresses. and i must say it feels much better :)
Dan Oachs
in reply to sep • • •The reason I am a sysadmin/network admin/IT person is because I was able to host servers ( email, web, games, etc. ) from my home internet connection in the 1990's. I was able to learn a TON and it cost nothing.
I also believe a lot of issues we have today stem from NAT and taking away users ability to do things from their home internet connection and pricing beginners out. :(
Jima
in reply to Dan Oachs • • •Any IT person born after 1983 can't subnet, all they know is AWS, forward their ports, google, be neurodivergent, deploy hot NAT, and lie.
(With apologies to anyone caught in the crossfire on this meme refactoring. 😀)
silverwizard likes this.
silverwizard
in reply to Jima • •Jima
in reply to silverwizard • • •silverwizard likes this.
Jima
in reply to Jima • • •But seriously, I ran a public IPv4 /28 on the internet before I had a tech job*, and to your point, those experiences gave me a lot of the skills I still find useful, 20+ years later.
(* Granted, only for like 2-3 months, but that first job only had a /29 when I started. 😂)
sep
in reply to Jima • • •playing nethack while waiting to swap floppies doing os upgrades
Litchralee_v6
in reply to Jima • • •@bhawthorne@infosec.exchange @gnuplusmatt @xdydx I've never had a legacy IP subnet to administer, but it's awfully tempting to obtain an IPv6 direct allocation and try my hand at BGP, just to operate a small slice of what comprises the modern Internet at large. I think it'd be fun.
That said, the ARIN $250 annual fees for AS numbers and allocations is a disincentive, which I do think is a policy failure, if their point is to encourage #IPv6 adoption.
sep
in reply to Litchralee_v6 • • •a bit different from RIPE where the fee is for the membership and the resources (except PI) is included.
but also the isp uplink that supports BGP are often a more expensive business class agreement.
probably cheaper to start with tunnelbroker.net/ or similar. They give you a private AS and PA allocation to use over a vpn. Does not help your latency tho :)
Hurricane Electric Free IPv6 Tunnel Broker
tunnelbroker.netLitchralee_v6
in reply to sep • • •I've been a very happy user of Tunnel Broker for a few years, with no major latency issues to speak of. But eventually, I either want to use my ISP's native IPv6 connectivity -- to be supposedly (re)enabled this year -- or have a direct allocation.
In an unusual twist, my ISP happens to support BGP peering, with a written policy on what they need. I sense that this is not normal for an ISP to be so forthcoming, but I won't complain if it works as stated.
sep
in reply to Litchralee_v6 • • •Litchralee_v6
in reply to sep • • •They'd be more amazing with #IPv6. :)
Ideally with a /56 subnet, but I'll accept a /60.
Death by Lambda
in reply to Litchralee_v6 • • •They only cost $250?
I am going up get me one tomorrow!
Litchralee_v6
in reply to Death by Lambda • • •Jima
in reply to Litchralee_v6 • • •John Kristoff
in reply to Litchralee_v6 • • •Jima
in reply to John Kristoff • • •Miyuru Sankalpa
in reply to Jima • • •As a person who was born after IPv6 was introduced, I agree with @doachs
First I got to know about IPv6 because I used servers which had IPv6 support. (DigitalOcean)
2015 - dnshistory.org/historical-dns-…
Finally got to try it out because my ISP deployed it around 2017.
My peers loves IPv4 and NAT because, they are more familiar with with it. Honestly they should be more familiar with IPv6.
Oh, and they gets confused when a server has more than 1 IPv4 address 😂
DNS History - Historical Records - aaaa - beeimg.com
dnshistory.orgsep
in reply to Dan Oachs • • •cost nothing? :)
my parents phone bills on the BBS's and dial up internet begs to differ! there were no isp's close to us either to all the internet dialup was long distance..
amazed they allowed it, but it shaped my whole life.
Brian Hawthorne
in reply to Jima • • •When was this, well, I have to admit my memory is no longer what it was, and Usenet and listserv archives have mostly disappeared, but it likely would have been sometimes in the early 1990s.
I certainly did not mean to imply that IPv6 inherently increases reachability. Where I was going was that back then, every device on the Internet had its own static IP address. This was before NAT, before DHCP.
Anyway, as I already said, it was a lazy throwaway comment, and the only reason I responded was because I don’t like to be accused of lying (being “disingenuous”).
Since you seem stuck on making a big deal about what I thought of as an amusing historical comment, I am going to delete that original comment.