10 ms·

As it should. Date notwithstanding, I would actually enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off

As it should. Date notwithstanding, I would actually enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux. I know some people don't care at all, but the internet was made to be addressable. IPv6 is the only shot we have to go back to that.

nurettin 6mo ago
> enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux That sounds so bad, it probably will be a windows feature.
nslsm 6mo ago
This reminds me of the ways the governments screw over people to force them to do things they don’t want to.
- lxgr 6mo ago
  Annoying things such as paying taxes, recycling/not polluting etc.? Some things really can only be solved via central coordination, as there is no natural game-theoretic/purely economic path from one local minimum to another. Being able to dig a small trench and letting gravity and water do the rest is great, but sometimes you do need a pump. I'm not convinced that IPv6 is such a case, but if it is, that's exactly the type of thing governments are much better at than markets.
huijzer 6mo ago
Please no. I used to have a Dutch ISP a few months ago that did not support IPv6 yet. (Odido. Same ISP that leaked my data in a big hack.)
- jeroenhd 6mo ago
  Odido is the cheapest ISP for a reason. They refuse to implement anything that isn't strictly required. Perhaps implementing an Odido tax might actually make Odido care enough to throw the switch on IPv6. They bought 2a02:4240::/32, they just refuse to make use of it.
  - miyuru 6mo ago
    they do use it in their speedtest server. curl -v https://speedtest.ams.t-mobile.nl.prod.hosts.ooklaserver.net:8080 ... * Connected to speedtest.ams.t-mobile.nl.prod.hosts.ooklaserver.net (2a02:4240::e) port 8080
    - embedding-shape 6mo ago
      Probably a requirement from Ookla, so again "They refuse to implement anything that isn't strictly required".
  - kingstnap 6mo ago
    > They refuse to implement anything strictly required This describes a lot of businesses ngl. Bell in Canada is one huge head scratcher. They are one of the largest ISPs here and I can even buy 8 gig internet to my house if I want but they don't support IPv6.
    - bombcar 6mo ago
      Apparently (according to techs) a lot of ISPs are like that - they said they have everything up and running and even tested to turn on IPv6 but they haven't received the go-ahead. He mentioned this because marking my connection as a "business" one without changing anything else would allow it to get IPv6 (a /64, bah).
- Sanzig 6mo ago
  Canadian ISPs are also extremely far behind on IPv6. Bell is the largest ISPs in the country and they still don't have IPv6. I'm with one of their wholly owned subsidiaries (EBOX) which offers static /56 allocations, but good luck trying to find anyone in tech support who understands WTF you're talking about.
everdrive 6mo ago
- I don't want my interfaces to have multiple IP addresses - I don't want my devices to have public, discoverable IPs - I like NAT and it works fine - I don't want to use dynamic DNS just so I have set up a single home server without my ISP rotating my /64 for no reason (and no SLAAC is not an answer because I don't want multiple addresses per interface) - I don't need an entire /48 for my home network IPv6 won't help the internet "be addressable." Almost everyone is moving towards centralized services, and almost no one is running home servers. IPv4 is not what is holding this back.
- zdp7 6mo ago
  Maybe you don't need the addresses, but there are other advantages. If we made the move, I suspect we could give you the experience you want and the one I want. I personally do want to host my own services. My phone is configured to send my pictures to Google and my personal NAS. Centralized services mean you have to trust that provider. These days I don't. I intend to leave centralized services so I know my content isn't training AI or the doorbell isn't spying on me or my neighbors. But, no instead we should force everyone to share the same IP addresses and run less efficient routing.
- doubled112 6mo ago
  I recently changed ISPs and have IPv6 for the first time. I mostly felt the same way, but have learned to get over it. Some things took some getting used to. An "ip address show" is messy with so many addresses. Those public IPs are randomized on most devices, so one is created and more static but goes mostly unused. The randomly generated IPs aren't useful inbound for long. I don't think you could brute force scan that kind of address space, and the address used to connect to the Internet will be different in a few hours. Having a public address doesn't worry me. At home I have a firewall at the edge. It is set to block everything incoming. Hosts have firewalls too. They also block everything. Back in the day, my PC got a real public IP too. NAT really is nice for keeping internal/external separate mentally. I'm lucky enough my current ISP does not rotate my IPv6 range. This, ironically, means I no longer need dynamic DNS. My IPv4 address changes daily. A residential account usually gets a /56, what are you talking about? Nowhere near a /48! (I'm just being funny here...) There are reasons to need direct connectivity that aren't hosting a server. Voice and video calls no longer need TURN/STUN. A bunch of workarounds required for online gaming become unnecessary. Be creative.
sidewndr46 6mo ago
Why, so you can inflict some personal pain on people without IPv6 access?
- lxgr 6mo ago
  Surely IPv6 support will spontaneously materialize on their networks once their pain becomes big enough!
- miyuru 6mo ago
  I am running IPv6 only servers, and I think it's fair that v4 only people feel the same pain some time in the future.
  - traderj0e 6mo ago
    IPv6: only better than v4 if you kneecap v4, even then maybe not
kevvok 6mo ago
It’s not implemented in the Linux kernel, but the latency penalty you’re describing is part of the “Happy Eyeballs” algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs
apitman 6mo ago
As sad as it makes me to admit, I don't think IPv6 is ever going to happen without government intervention. Adoption is flat at under 50% over the past year. IPv6 doesn't benefit big tech. SNI routing and NAT work pretty well for centralized platforms. AWS will gladly rent us IPv4 addresses until the end of time.
- toast0 6mo ago
  > IPv6 doesn't benefit big tech. It does, and big tech has largely adopted IPv6. For users with IPv6, the v6 path is often less constrained than then v4 path. Serving data faster/more consistently is of benefit to big tech. For a lot of users, v4 and v6 routing are different, which is also helpful for big tech. If you have two paths to the server (and happy eyeballs or something), you have more resiliance to routing issues. Clouds are slow on v6, but CDNs are not. Adoption on eyeball networks has been very slow, and it's unlikely to speed up much, IMHO. The benefits of v6 for ISPs are not that big for established serviced with large v4 pools. For ISPs running CGNAT, more v6 means less CGNAT and CGNAT is a lot more expensive than plain ip routing. (Doesn't mean all CGNAT providers run v6, but it's an incentive).
- zekica 6mo ago
  SNI routing is such a bad way to do what should be L3 problem that people implemented PROXY protocol to send information about user's endpoint address without doing MITM.
- Dagger2 6mo ago
  The Internet itself is growing, so "50%" does still represent a growing number of users. Also Google's stats are missing half a billion v6 users from China.
- traderj0e 6mo ago
  Another way to do ipv6 without government intervention is to make it 1. actually what people want, just v4 with more bits 2. have a reasonable migration path from v4. They made something overcomplicated that disregards all existing users, and now they act like this was the only possible way to avoid address exhaustion and it's everyone's obligation to switch. Even if the govt successfully forced v6, it'd be a downgrade.
hrmtst93837 6mo ago
[flagged]
hulitu 6mo ago
> I would actually enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux Use the source, Luke. Why not start with yourself ?

nurettin 6mo ago

> enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux That sounds so bad, it probably will be a windows feature.

nslsm 6mo ago

This reminds me of the ways the governments screw over people to force them to do things they don’t want to.

lxgr 6mo ago
Annoying things such as paying taxes, recycling/not polluting etc.? Some things really can only be solved via central coordination, as there is no natural game-theoretic/purely economic path from one local minimum to another. Being able to dig a small trench and letting gravity and water do the rest is great, but sometimes you do need a pump. I'm not convinced that IPv6 is such a case, but if it is, that's exactly the type of thing governments are much better at than markets.

huijzer 6mo ago

Please no. I used to have a Dutch ISP a few months ago that did not support IPv6 yet. (Odido. Same ISP that leaked my data in a big hack.)

jeroenhd 6mo ago
Odido is the cheapest ISP for a reason. They refuse to implement anything that isn't strictly required. Perhaps implementing an Odido tax might actually make Odido care enough to throw the switch on IPv6. They bought 2a02:4240::/32, they just refuse to make use of it.
- miyuru 6mo ago
  they do use it in their speedtest server. curl -v https://speedtest.ams.t-mobile.nl.prod.hosts.ooklaserver.net:8080 ... * Connected to speedtest.ams.t-mobile.nl.prod.hosts.ooklaserver.net (2a02:4240::e) port 8080
  - embedding-shape 6mo ago
    Probably a requirement from Ookla, so again "They refuse to implement anything that isn't strictly required".
- kingstnap 6mo ago
  > They refuse to implement anything strictly required This describes a lot of businesses ngl. Bell in Canada is one huge head scratcher. They are one of the largest ISPs here and I can even buy 8 gig internet to my house if I want but they don't support IPv6.
  - bombcar 6mo ago
    Apparently (according to techs) a lot of ISPs are like that - they said they have everything up and running and even tested to turn on IPv6 but they haven't received the go-ahead. He mentioned this because marking my connection as a "business" one without changing anything else would allow it to get IPv6 (a /64, bah).
Sanzig 6mo ago
Canadian ISPs are also extremely far behind on IPv6. Bell is the largest ISPs in the country and they still don't have IPv6. I'm with one of their wholly owned subsidiaries (EBOX) which offers static /56 allocations, but good luck trying to find anyone in tech support who understands WTF you're talking about.

everdrive 6mo ago

- I don't want my interfaces to have multiple IP addresses - I don't want my devices to have public, discoverable IPs - I like NAT and it works fine - I don't want to use dynamic DNS just so I have set up a single home server without my ISP rotating my /64 for no reason (and no SLAAC is not an answer because I don't want multiple addresses per interface) - I don't need an entire /48 for my home network IPv6 won't help the internet "be addressable." Almost everyone is moving towards centralized services, and almost no one is running home servers. IPv4 is not what is holding this back.

zdp7 6mo ago
Maybe you don't need the addresses, but there are other advantages. If we made the move, I suspect we could give you the experience you want and the one I want. I personally do want to host my own services. My phone is configured to send my pictures to Google and my personal NAS. Centralized services mean you have to trust that provider. These days I don't. I intend to leave centralized services so I know my content isn't training AI or the doorbell isn't spying on me or my neighbors. But, no instead we should force everyone to share the same IP addresses and run less efficient routing.
doubled112 6mo ago
I recently changed ISPs and have IPv6 for the first time. I mostly felt the same way, but have learned to get over it. Some things took some getting used to. An "ip address show" is messy with so many addresses. Those public IPs are randomized on most devices, so one is created and more static but goes mostly unused. The randomly generated IPs aren't useful inbound for long. I don't think you could brute force scan that kind of address space, and the address used to connect to the Internet will be different in a few hours. Having a public address doesn't worry me. At home I have a firewall at the edge. It is set to block everything incoming. Hosts have firewalls too. They also block everything. Back in the day, my PC got a real public IP too. NAT really is nice for keeping internal/external separate mentally. I'm lucky enough my current ISP does not rotate my IPv6 range. This, ironically, means I no longer need dynamic DNS. My IPv4 address changes daily. A residential account usually gets a /56, what are you talking about? Nowhere near a /48! (I'm just being funny here...) There are reasons to need direct connectivity that aren't hosting a server. Voice and video calls no longer need TURN/STUN. A bunch of workarounds required for online gaming become unnecessary. Be creative.

sidewndr46 6mo ago

Why, so you can inflict some personal pain on people without IPv6 access?

lxgr 6mo ago
Surely IPv6 support will spontaneously materialize on their networks once their pain becomes big enough!
miyuru 6mo ago
I am running IPv6 only servers, and I think it's fair that v4 only people feel the same pain some time in the future.
- traderj0e 6mo ago
  IPv6: only better than v4 if you kneecap v4, even then maybe not

kevvok 6mo ago

It’s not implemented in the Linux kernel, but the latency penalty you’re describing is part of the “Happy Eyeballs” algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs

apitman 6mo ago

As sad as it makes me to admit, I don't think IPv6 is ever going to happen without government intervention. Adoption is flat at under 50% over the past year. IPv6 doesn't benefit big tech. SNI routing and NAT work pretty well for centralized platforms. AWS will gladly rent us IPv4 addresses until the end of time.

toast0 6mo ago
> IPv6 doesn't benefit big tech. It does, and big tech has largely adopted IPv6. For users with IPv6, the v6 path is often less constrained than then v4 path. Serving data faster/more consistently is of benefit to big tech. For a lot of users, v4 and v6 routing are different, which is also helpful for big tech. If you have two paths to the server (and happy eyeballs or something), you have more resiliance to routing issues. Clouds are slow on v6, but CDNs are not. Adoption on eyeball networks has been very slow, and it's unlikely to speed up much, IMHO. The benefits of v6 for ISPs are not that big for established serviced with large v4 pools. For ISPs running CGNAT, more v6 means less CGNAT and CGNAT is a lot more expensive than plain ip routing. (Doesn't mean all CGNAT providers run v6, but it's an incentive).
zekica 6mo ago
SNI routing is such a bad way to do what should be L3 problem that people implemented PROXY protocol to send information about user's endpoint address without doing MITM.
Dagger2 6mo ago
The Internet itself is growing, so "50%" does still represent a growing number of users. Also Google's stats are missing half a billion v6 users from China.
traderj0e 6mo ago
Another way to do ipv6 without government intervention is to make it 1. actually what people want, just v4 with more bits 2. have a reasonable migration path from v4. They made something overcomplicated that disregards all existing users, and now they act like this was the only possible way to avoid address exhaustion and it's everyone's obligation to switch. Even if the govt successfully forced v6, it'd be a downgrade.

hrmtst93837 6mo ago

[flagged]

hulitu 6mo ago

> I would actually enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux Use the source, Luke. Why not start with yourself ?