Then you're not so "premium" as you want to believe. But don't worry, throughout history, there have always been retrogressive individuals who objected to changes, progress, and so on.
@Mumbly said:
Then you're not so "premium" as you want to believe. But don't worry, throughout history, there have always been retrogressive individuals who objected to changes, progress, and so on.
They say you want what you don't have. Singapore only have processed butter and low fat milk on sale. So I want it cause I can't get it
As for IPv6, I do not see how it affects regular users. It is not like SSL which was implemented for a genuine security concern. IPv6 will eventually replace IPv4 (unless something better comes along). So debating about it is useless
This thread is about checking what percentage of people on LES are on IPv6 and given nearly 50% is still on IPv4, it aligns well with the worldwide IPv6 adoption statistics.
@somik said:
This thread is about checking what percentage of people on LES are on IPv6 and given nearly 50% is still on IPv4, it aligns well with the worldwide IPv6 adoption statistics.
I like the initiative, but the poll is very confusing. It mixes "home devices" and servers, all and any, and makes it basically impossible to correctly answer the question. None of the alternatives correctly describes my situation.
I would assume that a majority of users are on both ip4 and ipv6 so asking "are you on ip4 or ipv6?" makes it a logical fallacy.
A simple "Do you use ipv6 (yes/no)" question would have been enough.
@somik said:
This thread is about checking what percentage of people on LES are on IPv6 and given nearly 50% is still on IPv4, it aligns well with the worldwide IPv6 adoption statistics.
I like the initiative, but the poll is very confusing. It mixes "home devices" and servers, all and any, and makes it basically impossible to correctly answer the question. None of the alternatives correctly describes my situation.
I would assume that a majority of users are on both ip4 and ipv6 so asking "are you on ip4 or ipv6?" makes it a logical fallacy.
A simple "Do you use ipv6 (yes/no)" question would have been enough.
Lets say my mobile telco uses IPv6. So i can say "yes" to using IPv6 even if my home network and all of my servers are on IPv4. Similarly, if one of my vps is on IPv6, even if the remaining 20+ are on IPv4 / NAT, I am technically using IPv6
The poll is not perfect, but it does give a bit more granularity to catch some of the common cases. If this does not apply to the user, they are asked to select other and post in the thread (like in your case )
@terrorgen said:
You need /64 to get SLAAC to work though.
That explains why they issue /64 most of the time. Then again, when you have 3.4×10 pow(38) addresses to play with, giving every client a 1.8 x 10 pow(19) you will still have too many IPs left over...
That perspective is entirely incorrect when considering IPv6. IPv6 differs from IPv4, don't look at it through the lens of old IPv4 perspectives.
Its design differs fundamentally. It's not about the number of individual /128 addresses or if you can't switch completely yet have in your mind something like /64 = one IPv4 address for easier transition.
You're not getting from your ISP 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, but one /64. Work with that.
That's also how the internet sees your IPv6. Do shit and your /64 will get banned, blacklisted, etc.
@Mumbly said:
That perspective is entirely incorrect when considering IPv6. IPv6 differs from IPv4, don't look at it through the lens of old IPv4 perspectives.
Its design differs fundamentally. It's not about the number of individual /128 addresses or if you can't switch completely yet have in your mind something like /64 = one IPv4 address for easier transition.
You're not getting from your ISP 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, but one /64. Work with that.
That's also how the internet sees your IPv6. Do shit and your /64 will get banned, blacklisted, etc.
@Mumbly said:
That perspective is entirely incorrect when considering IPv6. IPv6 differs from IPv4, don't look at it through the lens of old IPv4 perspectives.
Its design differs fundamentally. It's not about the number of individual /128 addresses or if you can't switch completely yet have in your mind something like /64 = one IPv4 address for easier transition.
You're not getting from your ISP 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, but one /64. Work with that.
That's also how the internet sees your IPv6. Do shit and your /64 will get banned, blacklisted, etc.
This is a good point.
I try to think of it as "a /64 is an endpoint". An endpoint can be a single node, a local network, a dc or whatever, but its still a single endpoint, it's one "unit" or whatever you prefer to call it.
This is why you should never subnet smaller than /64 in ipv6 unless you really know what you are doing, it is highly frowned upon and most carriers refuses (rightfully so) to route anything smaller than /64.
I think this is one of the hurdles for ipv6 adoption, a lot of people simply looks at it as a ip4 with more characters which takes a way a lot of the fundamental design improvements and advantages it actually has over ip4.
@Mumbly said:
That perspective is entirely incorrect when considering IPv6. IPv6 differs from IPv4, don't look at it through the lens of old IPv4 perspectives.
Its design differs fundamentally. It's not about the number of individual /128 addresses or if you can't switch completely yet have in your mind something like /64 = one IPv4 address for easier transition.
You're not getting from your ISP 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, but one /64. Work with that.
That's also how the internet sees your IPv6. Do shit and your /64 will get banned, blacklisted, etc.
This is a good point.
I try to think of it as "a /64 is an endpoint". An endpoint can be a single node, a local network, a dc or whatever, but its still a single endpoint, it's one "unit" or whatever you prefer to call it.
This is why you should never subnet smaller than /64 in ipv6 unless you really know what you are doing, it is highly frowned upon and most carriers refuses (rightfully so) to route anything smaller than /64.
I think this is one of the hurdles for ipv6 adoption, a lot of people simply looks at it as a ip4 with more characters which takes a way a lot of the fundamental design improvements and advantages it actually has over ip4.
Damn, so it's like 1234:5678:9abc:de01:: is just 1 IP while anything expanded from there is the sub IP/routes under that one ip...
So basically instead of using NAT, all devices in one client are put on the internet through that one block of /64 IP while each device gets a /128 part of that IP block?
@Mumbly said:
That perspective is entirely incorrect when considering IPv6. IPv6 differs from IPv4, don't look at it through the lens of old IPv4 perspectives.
Its design differs fundamentally. It's not about the number of individual /128 addresses or if you can't switch completely yet have in your mind something like /64 = one IPv4 address for easier transition.
You're not getting from your ISP 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, but one /64. Work with that.
That's also how the internet sees your IPv6. Do shit and your /64 will get banned, blacklisted, etc.
This is a good point.
I try to think of it as "a /64 is an endpoint". An endpoint can be a single node, a local network, a dc or whatever, but its still a single endpoint, it's one "unit" or whatever you prefer to call it.
This is why you should never subnet smaller than /64 in ipv6 unless you really know what you are doing, it is highly frowned upon and most carriers refuses (rightfully so) to route anything smaller than /64.
I think this is one of the hurdles for ipv6 adoption, a lot of people simply looks at it as a ip4 with more characters which takes a way a lot of the fundamental design improvements and advantages it actually has over ip4.
Damn, so it's like 1234:5678:9abc:de01:: is just 1 IP while anything expanded from there is the sub IP/routes under that one ip...
So basically instead of using NAT, all devices in one client are put on the internet through that one block of /64 IP while each device gets a /128 part of that IP block?
Technically that should work (as long as you get the arp stuff right) but if you are to be true to the rfc's, no, that's not how you should do it. Each customer should actually get a /48 or /56.
The correct way would be that the ISP assigns a /48 or /56 to the customers router. The customers router then splits this into /64's. The reason for this is that SLAAC, the automatic assigning of ipv6 addresses, only works in /64 networks so if the devices on the "inside" should be able to use SLAAC they need to be in a /64 network.
SLAAC is a multiple step process but basically it boils down to the clients on the network using their own mac-adress combined with the network prefix to calculate their own ipv6 adress. There is no server that assigns addresses like in dhcp, the clients simply figures out their ip and gateway on their own.
Damn, so it's like 1234:5678:9abc:de01:: is just 1 IP while anything expanded from there is the sub IP/routes under that one ip...
So basically instead of using NAT, all devices in one client are put on the internet through that one block of /64 IP while each device gets a /128 part of that IP block?
Technically that should work (as long as you get the arp stuff right) but if you are to be true to the rfc's, no, that's not how you should do it. Each customer should actually get a /48 or /56.
The correct way would be that the ISP assigns a /48 or /56 to the customers router. The customers router then splits this into /64's. The reason for this is that SLAAC, the automatic assigning of ipv6 addresses, only works in /64 networks so if the devices on the "inside" should be able to use SLAAC they need to be in a /64 network.
SLAAC is a multiple step process but basically it boils down to the clients on the network using their own mac-adress combined with the network prefix to calculate their own ipv6 adress. There is no server that assigns addresses like in dhcp, the clients simply figures out their ip and gateway on their own.
Ya, my routers get /64 IP from the network provider. Since I got 3 lines, I got 3 blocks of /64 IPv6, one for each of my routers. Bookmarked the url. Will go through it tomorrow.
That's almost fulll IPv6 adoption for your country. Weird how Indonesia and India are leading IPv6 adoption!
Actually it's not.
The countries that are "getting online" in the last decades or so does not have the enormous burden of the ip4 legacy, since they have to build from scratch they use ipv6 as their main protocol. Nobody in their right mind will build a new infrastructure today and base it on ip4, that would be insane.
Also, India have an enormous population, if everyone in India needed an ip4 they alone would use ~30% of the total ip4 space.
@somik said: If IPv6 connects all devices over the internet, is there a need to setup wireguard to connect the devices to one another?
A mesh VPN is beyond the scope of solving my issues, if that's what you mean. A simple Wireguard VPN is enough.
Sadly all my ISPs (home & mobile) are IPv4 only.
Damn, so it's like 1234:5678:9abc:de01:: is just 1 IP while anything expanded from there is the sub IP/routes under that one ip...
So basically instead of using NAT, all devices in one client are put on the internet through that one block of /64 IP while each device gets a /128 part of that IP block?
Technically that should work (as long as you get the arp stuff right) but if you are to be true to the rfc's, no, that's not how you should do it. Each customer should actually get a /48 or /56.
The correct way would be that the ISP assigns a /48 or /56 to the customers router. The customers router then splits this into /64's. The reason for this is that SLAAC, the automatic assigning of ipv6 addresses, only works in /64 networks so if the devices on the "inside" should be able to use SLAAC they need to be in a /64 network.
SLAAC is a multiple step process but basically it boils down to the clients on the network using their own mac-adress combined with the network prefix to calculate their own ipv6 adress. There is no server that assigns addresses like in dhcp, the clients simply figures out their ip and gateway on their own.
Ya, my routers get /64 IP from the network provider. Since I got 3 lines, I got 3 blocks of /64 IPv6, one for each of my routers. Bookmarked the url. Will go through it tomorrow.
That's almost fulll IPv6 adoption for your country. Weird how Indonesia and India are leading IPv6 adoption!
Actually it's not.
The countries that are "getting online" in the last decades or so does not have the enormous burden of the ip4 legacy, since they have to build from scratch they use ipv6 as their main protocol. Nobody in their right mind will build a new infrastructure today and base it on ip4, that would be insane.
Also, India have an enormous population, if everyone in India needed an ip4 they alone would use ~30% of the total ip4 space.
True. If you need to buy hardware, might as well get the ones that support IPv6 since it'll be cheaper to run it in the long term. Moreover, new ISP would rarely buy used hardware. Since most new hardware supports IPv6 I guess that's what they are getting.
@somik said: If IPv6 connects all devices over the internet, is there a need to setup wireguard to connect the devices to one another?
A mesh VPN is beyond the scope of solving my issues, if that's what you mean. A simple Wireguard VPN is enough.
Sadly all my ISPs (home & mobile) are IPv4 only.
Oh, so only the servers are IPv6 but the home are still IPv4. That's weird!
@AuroraZero said:
Should be okay it is just butt crack
home 1, ftth as7713 : native ipv6 + ipv4
home 2, ftth as7713 : native ipv6 + ipv4
home 3, ftth local isp : ipv4 only
work , ftth as17451 : native ipv6 + ipv4
mobile 1, xl axiata : native ipv6 + ipv4
mobile 2, indosat ooredoo : native ipv6 + ipv4
That's almost fulll IPv6 adoption for your country. Weird how Indonesia and India are leading IPv6 adoption!
I'm just lucky to live in a place that is covered by a big ISP, there is plenty (more than hundred) small ISP that not offering ipv6.
fyi, indonesia have more than 1000+ licenced ISP and 8000++ island.
Indonesia has 17,508 islands officially; of which, only around 6,000 have people living on them. Given that most islands don't even have electricity, I doubt they want IPv6 (or any internet connectivity) there. The major islands where there is connectivity, there is good internet connectivity. Unfortunaly, bigger ISPs do not want to move to support smaller islands, and smaller ISPs do not want to buy new infra and buys and makes due with second hand infra without IPv6 support? Who knows...
home 1, ftth as7713 : native ipv6 + ipv4
home 2, ftth as7713 : native ipv6 + ipv4
home 3, ftth local isp : ipv4 only
work , ftth as17451 : native ipv6 + ipv4
mobile 1, xl axiata : native ipv6 + ipv4
mobile 2, indosat ooredoo : native ipv6 + ipv4
That's almost fulll IPv6 adoption for your country. Weird how Indonesia and India are leading IPv6 adoption!
I'm just lucky to live in a place that is covered by a big ISP, there is plenty (more than hundred) small ISP that not offering ipv6.
fyi, indonesia have more than 1000+ licenced ISP and 8000++ island.
I'm using as7713, still using ipv4 only. I know i can enable ipv6 via ONT and passthrought ipv6 to my router, but i had problem. If using passthrough method, ipv6 doesn't live more than 1-2 hour and then vanish. If i using route mode. My router software doesn't support it, maybe because the address not /64 (ONT then router). If using bridge mode (ONT -> router), ISP doesn't allow it, they thought bridge = bandwidth reselling, lol.
True. If you need to buy hardware, might as well get the ones that support IPv6 since it'll be cheaper to run it in the long term.
I seriously don't think you have a choice, I don't think you can find a router that does not support ipv6.
People have to start grasping the fact that ipv6 has been a standard for 25 years, it is not something new.
True. If you need to buy hardware, might as well get the ones that support IPv6 since it'll be cheaper to run it in the long term.
I seriously don't think you have a choice, I don't think you can find a router that does not support ipv6.
People have to start grasping the fact that ipv6 has been a standard for 25 years, it is not something new.
The core specification for the IPv6 protocol was first published in 1995 as RFC 1883, and has seen a number of enhancements and updates since then. It formally became a full standard (as opposed to a draft standard) in 2017 with the publication of RFC 8200, although IPv6 had already been deployed for many years.
In December 1998, IPv6 became a Draft Standard for the IETF,[2] which subsequently ratified it as an Internet Standard on 14 July 2017.
So IPv6 was only a full "standard" for 7 years, not 25.
Anyway, what I need now is a good firewall solution for my devices that are now exposed to the internet. I was previously using the router's firewall + NAT to block most ports from the internet and was only accessing them over home network. Now that everything is open to the internet I need to change all the passwords, block root access and remove "unsafe" servers I was running as test...
Comments
Get yourself a server in a semi-decent DC. We are in 21st century. Don't skimp on yourself.
Our home internet has DSLite (shared ipv4 and own ipv6 or whatever it was).
"DualStack Lite"
Ympker's VPN LTD Comparison, Uptime.is, Ympker's GitHub.
I would but I like paying $10 per month for a dedicated server
Anyway, I do not use it for anything other then offsite backups so doesn't matter if it has IPv4 only network
Websites have ads, I have ad-blocker.
Then you're not so "premium" as you want to believe. But don't worry, throughout history, there have always been retrogressive individuals who objected to changes, progress, and so on.
They say you want what you don't have. Singapore only have processed butter and low fat milk on sale. So I want it cause I can't get it
As for IPv6, I do not see how it affects regular users. It is not like SSL which was implemented for a genuine security concern. IPv6 will eventually replace IPv4 (unless something better comes along). So debating about it is useless
This thread is about checking what percentage of people on LES are on IPv6 and given nearly 50% is still on IPv4, it aligns well with the worldwide IPv6 adoption statistics.
Websites have ads, I have ad-blocker.
I like the initiative, but the poll is very confusing. It mixes "home devices" and servers, all and any, and makes it basically impossible to correctly answer the question. None of the alternatives correctly describes my situation.
I would assume that a majority of users are on both ip4 and ipv6 so asking "are you on ip4 or ipv6?" makes it a logical fallacy.
A simple "Do you use ipv6 (yes/no)" question would have been enough.
Same thing for my FTTH by AS55836.
They probably assign a /56 to each router, maybe, didnt test it properly.
youtube.com/watch?v=k1BneeJTDcU
Lets say my mobile telco uses IPv6. So i can say "yes" to using IPv6 even if my home network and all of my servers are on IPv4. Similarly, if one of my vps is on IPv6, even if the remaining 20+ are on IPv4 / NAT, I am technically using IPv6
The poll is not perfect, but it does give a bit more granularity to catch some of the common cases. If this does not apply to the user, they are asked to select other and post in the thread (like in your case
)
That's 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 IPs...
I only get a /64 from my ISP which is only 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs...
Websites have ads, I have ad-blocker.
You need /64 to get SLAAC to work though.
The all seeing eye sees everything...
That explains why they issue /64 most of the time. Then again, when you have 3.4×10 pow(38) addresses to play with, giving every client a 1.8 x 10 pow(19) you will still have too many IPs left over...
Websites have ads, I have ad-blocker.
That perspective is entirely incorrect when considering IPv6. IPv6 differs from IPv4, don't look at it through the lens of old IPv4 perspectives.
Its design differs fundamentally. It's not about the number of individual /128 addresses or if you can't switch completely yet have in your mind something like /64 = one IPv4 address for easier transition.
You're not getting from your ISP 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, but one /64. Work with that.
That's also how the internet sees your IPv6. Do shit and your /64 will get banned, blacklisted, etc.
Just adding Spamhaus FAQ as a reference: https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/combined-spam-sources-css/#css-how-handle-ipv6
Check our KVM VPS (flags are clickable): 🇵🇱 🇸🇪 | Looking glass: 🇵🇱 🇸🇪
This is a good point.
I try to think of it as "a /64 is an endpoint". An endpoint can be a single node, a local network, a dc or whatever, but its still a single endpoint, it's one "unit" or whatever you prefer to call it.
This is why you should never subnet smaller than /64 in ipv6 unless you really know what you are doing, it is highly frowned upon and most carriers refuses (rightfully so) to route anything smaller than /64.
I think this is one of the hurdles for ipv6 adoption, a lot of people simply looks at it as a ip4 with more characters which takes a way a lot of the fundamental design improvements and advantages it actually has over ip4.
Damn, so it's like 1234:5678:9abc:de01:: is just 1 IP while anything expanded from there is the sub IP/routes under that one ip...
So basically instead of using NAT, all devices in one client are put on the internet through that one block of /64 IP while each device gets a /128 part of that IP block?
Websites have ads, I have ad-blocker.
I was wrong, they do only provide a /64
I think the /56 was a one time terrible mistake they did lmaO
youtube.com/watch?v=k1BneeJTDcU
location, indonesia
home 1, ftth as7713 : native ipv6 + ipv4
home 2, ftth as7713 : native ipv6 + ipv4
home 3, ftth local isp : ipv4 only
work , ftth as17451 : native ipv6 + ipv4
mobile 1, xl axiata : native ipv6 + ipv4
mobile 2, indosat ooredoo : native ipv6 + ipv4
Technically that should work (as long as you get the arp stuff right) but if you are to be true to the rfc's, no, that's not how you should do it. Each customer should actually get a /48 or /56.
The correct way would be that the ISP assigns a /48 or /56 to the customers router. The customers router then splits this into /64's. The reason for this is that SLAAC, the automatic assigning of ipv6 addresses, only works in /64 networks so if the devices on the "inside" should be able to use SLAAC they need to be in a /64 network.
SLAAC is a multiple step process but basically it boils down to the clients on the network using their own mac-adress combined with the network prefix to calculate their own ipv6 adress. There is no server that assigns addresses like in dhcp, the clients simply figures out their ip and gateway on their own.
Google SLAAC and EUI-64 if you want to read up on it, ipv6 gets really fun once you start to understand it.
https://www.networkacademy.io/ccna/ipv6/stateless-address-autoconfiguration-slaac is a good start.
I am on Crack v10
Free Hosting at YetiNode | Cryptid Security | URL Shortener | LaunchVPS | ExtraVM | Host-C | In the Node, or Out of the Loop?
IPv6 adoption here is inane, I setup a Wireguard VPN on all my devices in order to have IPv6 connectivity.
That's almost fulll IPv6 adoption for your country. Weird how Indonesia and India are leading IPv6 adoption!
Ya, my routers get /64 IP from the network provider. Since I got 3 lines, I got 3 blocks of /64 IPv6, one for each of my routers. Bookmarked the url. Will go through it tomorrow.
It is not good to be on crack...
If IPv6 connects all devices over the internet, is there a need to setup wireguard to connect the devices to one another?
Websites have ads, I have ad-blocker.
Actually it's not.
The countries that are "getting online" in the last decades or so does not have the enormous burden of the ip4 legacy, since they have to build from scratch they use ipv6 as their main protocol. Nobody in their right mind will build a new infrastructure today and base it on ip4, that would be insane.
Also, India have an enormous population, if everyone in India needed an ip4 they alone would use ~30% of the total ip4 space.
A mesh VPN is beyond the scope of solving my issues, if that's what you mean. A simple Wireguard VPN is enough.
Sadly all my ISPs (home & mobile) are IPv4 only.
Should be okay it is just butt crack
Free Hosting at YetiNode | Cryptid Security | URL Shortener | LaunchVPS | ExtraVM | Host-C | In the Node, or Out of the Loop?
NVMe VPS | Ryzen 7950X VDS | Dedicated Servers -- Crunchbits.com
True. If you need to buy hardware, might as well get the ones that support IPv6 since it'll be cheaper to run it in the long term. Moreover, new ISP would rarely buy used hardware. Since most new hardware supports IPv6 I guess that's what they are getting.
Oh, so only the servers are IPv6 but the home are still IPv4. That's weird!
Only if you are a plumber. Mario, is that you?
Websites have ads, I have ad-blocker.
I'm just lucky to live in a place that is covered by a big ISP, there is plenty (more than hundred) small ISP that not offering ipv6.
fyi, indonesia have more than 1000+ licenced ISP and 8000++ island.
Indonesia has 17,508 islands officially; of which, only around 6,000 have people living on them. Given that most islands don't even have electricity, I doubt they want IPv6 (or any internet connectivity) there. The major islands where there is connectivity, there is good internet connectivity. Unfortunaly, bigger ISPs do not want to move to support smaller islands, and smaller ISPs do not want to buy new infra and buys and makes due with second hand infra without IPv6 support? Who knows...
Websites have ads, I have ad-blocker.
I'm using as7713, still using ipv4 only. I know i can enable ipv6 via ONT and passthrought ipv6 to my router, but i had problem. If using passthrough method, ipv6 doesn't live more than 1-2 hour and then vanish. If i using route mode. My router software doesn't support it, maybe because the address not /64 (ONT then router). If using bridge mode (ONT -> router), ISP doesn't allow it, they thought bridge = bandwidth reselling, lol.
I seriously don't think you have a choice, I don't think you can find a router that does not support ipv6.
People have to start grasping the fact that ipv6 has been a standard for 25 years, it is not something new.
As per: https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/ipv6/faq/
And here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
So IPv6 was only a full "standard" for 7 years, not 25.
Anyway, what I need now is a good firewall solution for my devices that are now exposed to the internet. I was previously using the router's firewall + NAT to block most ports from the internet and was only accessing them over home network. Now that everything is open to the internet I need to change all the passwords, block root access and remove "unsafe" servers I was running as test...
Websites have ads, I have ad-blocker.