Basically the extent of my IPv6 knowledge : programmerhumor

[+] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 114 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[deleted]

[-] Vlyn@lemmy.zip 46 points 1 year ago

My ISP doesn't support IPv6, now what?

It's really bullshit.

[-] eclipse@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Hurricane Electric have a free tunnel broker that is super simple to set up if you really want to get on the bandwagon.

https://tunnelbroker.net/

Though honestly I'd say the benefits of setting it up aren't really worth the trouble unless you're keen.

[-] FrozenHandle@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah it's a huge source of problems. If you are outside the US your IPv6 prefix is never gonna be correct in every GeoIP database, even if you send a request to have it corrected, so you sometimes get geoblocked and other sites just block you because it sometimes gets classified as VPN.

[-] eclipse@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree. GeoIP was never a good idea, but here we are. Any ASN could be broken up and routed wherever (and changed) but it's still far too prevalent.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] eclipse@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

It also means you no longer need the kludge that is NAT. Full E2E connectivity is really nice -- though I've found some network admins dislike this idea because they're so used to thinking about it differently or (mistakenly) think it adds to their security.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

NAT still has its place in obfuscating the internal network. Also, it's easier to think about firewall/routing when you segregate a network behind a router on its own subnet, IMO.

[-] eclipse@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Given how large the address space is, it's super easy to segregate out your networks to the nth degree and apply proper firewall rules.

There's no reason your clients can't have public, world routeable IPs as well as security.

Security via obfuscation isn't security. It's a crutch.

[-] efstajas@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's no reason your clients can't have public, world routeable IPs as well as security.

There are a lot of valid reasons, other than security, for why you wouldn't want that though. You don't necessarily want to allow any client's activity to be traceable on an individual level, nor do you want to allow people to do things like count the number of clients at a particular location. Information like that is just unnecessary to expose, even if hiding it doesn't make anything more secure per se.

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 12 points 1 year ago

Well good news. Because ipv6 has a thing called privacy extensions which has been switched on by default on every device I've used.

That generates random ipv6 addresses (which are regularly rotated) that are used for outgoing connections. Your router should block incoming connections to those ips but the os will too. The proper permanent ip address isn't used for outgoing connections and the address space allocated to each user makes a brute force scan more prohibitive than scanning the whole Ipv4 Internet.

So I'm going to say that using routable ipv6 addresses with privacy extensions is more secure than a single Ipv4 Nat address with dnat.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

Obfuscation is not security, and not having IPv6 causes other issues. Including some security/privacy ones.

There is no problem having a border firewall in IPv6. NAT does not help that situation at all.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Obfuscation is not security

Yes, of course. But saying trite things like that doesn't get around the idea that giving out a map of the internal network by default isn't the best policy.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

So instead we open up a bunch of other issues.

With CGNAT, governments still spy on individual addresses when they want. Since those individual addresses now cover a whole bunch of people, they effectively spy on large groups, most of whom have nothing to do with whatever they're investigating. At least with IPv6, it'd be targetted.

NAT obscurity comes at a cost. Its gain is so little that even a small cost eliminates its benefit.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Governments are not anyone's issue other than other governments. If your threat model is state actors, you're SOL either way.

Making it harder for everyone else is the goal, and to do that you need a swiss cheese model. Hopefully all the holes don't line up between the layers to make it that much harder to get through. You aren't plugging all the holes, but every layer you put on makes it a little bit harder.

And NAT is not just simple to set up, it's the intuitive base for the last 30 years of firewalls. I don't see where you get a cost from it. As I said, separating network spaces with it comes naturally at this point. Maybe that'll change, but I remember using routable IPV4 when it was it the norm, and moving to NAT made that all feel way more natural.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

Governments are not anyone’s issue other than other governments. If your threat model is state actors, you’re SOL either way.

That's a silly way to look at it. Governments can be spying on a block of people at once, or just the one person they actually care about. One is clearly preferable.

Again, the obscurity benefit of NAT is so small that literally any cost outweighs it.

I don’t see where you get a cost from it.

Firewall rules are more complicated
Firewall code is more complicated
Firewall hardware has to be beefier to handle it
NAT introduces more latency
CGNAT introduces even more latency
It introduces extra surface area for bugs in the firewall code. Some security related, some not. (I have one NAT firewall that doesn't want to setup the hairpin correctly for some reason, meaning we have to do a bunch of workarounds using DNS).
Lots of applications have to jump through hoops to make it through NAT, such as VoIP services
Those hoops sometimes make things more susceptible to snooping; Vonage VoIP, for example, has to use a central server cluster to keep connections open to end users, which is the perfect point to install snooping (and this has happened)
. . . and that centralization makes the whole system more expensive and less reliable
A bunch of apps just never get built or deployed en masse because they would require direct addressing to work; stuff like a P2P instant messenger
Running hosted games with two people behind NAT and two people on the external network gets really complicated
. . . something the industry has "fixed" by having "live service" games. In other words, centralized servers.
TLS has a field for "Server Name Indication" (SNI) that sends the server name in plaintext. Without going far into the details, this makes it easier for the ISP to know what server you're asking for, and it exists for reasons directly related to IPv4 sticking around because of NAT. Widespread TLS use would never have been feasible without this compromise as long as we're stuck with IPv4.

We forced decisions into a more centralized, less private Internet for reasons that can be traced directly to NAT.

If you want to hide your hosts, just block non-established, non-related incoming connections at your firewall. NAT does not help anything besides extending IPv4's life.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] zurohki@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago

That's what temporary privacy addresses are for. Clients can just keep generating new addresses in your /64, which is it's own subnet.

[-] digdilem@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I think you'll find some ISPs will be reluctant to let go of CGNAT - they're doing quite nicely by charging extra for 'commercial' services where it's not in the way.

Fortunately, many of us know about cloudflare tunnelling and other services, so NAT really isn't a problem to self hosters and even SMEs any more.

[-] AceBonobo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Why do you say NAT doesn't make a network more secure?

[-] eclipse@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

This article is biased to selling you more F5 equipment but is a reasonable summary:

https://www.f5.com/resources/white-papers/the-myth-of-network-address-translation-as-security

Long story short is that NAT is eggshell security and you should be relying on actual firewall rules (I wouldn't recommend F5) instead of the implicit but not very good protections of NAT.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago

It wasn't designed for a security purpose in the first place. So turn the question around: why does NAT make a network more secure at all?

The answer is that it doesn't. Firewalls work fine without NAT. Better, in fact, because NAT itself is a complication firewalls have to deal with, and complications are the enemy of security. The benefits of obfuscating hosts behind the firewall is speculative and doesn't outweigh other benefits of end to end addressing.

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] smb@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

ipv6 in companies... ipv6 is not hard, but for internal networking no company (really) "needs" more than rfc1918 address space. thus any decision in that direction is always "less" needed than any bonus for (da)magement personnel is crucial for the whole companies survival...

for companies services to be reachable from outside/ipv6 mostly "only" the loadbalancers/revproxies etc need to be ipv6 ready but ... this i.e. also produces logs that possibly break decades old regexes that no one understands any more (as the good engineers left due to too many boni payed to damagement personnel) while other access/deny rules that could break or worse let through where they should block (remember that 192.168. could the local part of ipv6 IF sone genious used a matching mech that treats the dot "." as a wildcard as overpayed damagement personnel made them rush too fast), could be hidden "somewhere". altogether technical debt is a huge blocker for everything, especially company growth, and if no customer "demands" ipv6, then it stays on the damagement personnels list as "fulfilling the whishes of engineers to keep them happy" instead of on the always deleted "cleaning up technical debt caused by damagement personnel" list.

setting up firewalls for ipv6 is quite easy and if you go the finegrained "whitelisted or drop/block" approach from the beginning it might take a bit for ipv6 specials to be known to you, but the much bigger thing is IMHO the then current state of firewall rules. and who knows every existing rule? what rules should be removed already and must not be ported to ipv6? usually firewalls and their rules are a big mess due to ... again too many boni payed to damagement personnel, hindering the company from the needed steps forward...

ipv6 adoption is slow for reasons that are driving huge cars that in turn speed up other problems ;-|

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Norgur@fedia.io 83 points 1 year ago

I also know that I cannot tell the difference between two IPv6 addresses because they all merge into an indiscernible blur inside my head

[-] Hupf@feddit.de 59 points 1 year ago

Back when we had to dial ipv4 addresses from memory

rotary phone with acoustic coupler

[-] faebudo@infosec.pub 15 points 1 year ago

However I can see when any IPv6 begins with 2a02:12xx:: then it's Swisscom (biggest swiss ISP). But I can't remember any of their hundreds of IPv4 prefixes.

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 14 points 1 year ago

I have a feeling making it all CAPS would have made it just a bit easier.
That, or using monospace fonts for it everywhere.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Kerb@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

::1 is the new 127.0.0.1
:: abbreviates empty fields
ipv6 has more addresses
there is something going on with mac addresses (asside from arp)

thats all i remember

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

fd00:: is the new 192.168

[-] twei@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

~~fc00::/7 are ULA (basically what RFC1918 was for IPv4)~~ not entirely true, fc00::/8 is part of ULA, but it is not yet defined. Use fd00::/8 instead.
2001:db8::/32 is for documentation purposes

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] feoh@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago

I keep hearing this, and I KNOW it's true at the enterprise level, but I've been running my home LAN IPv6 native for the last - 6+ years? Ever since I learned Comcat would vend it to you from their stock router.

Works great. No problems. Didn't used to be that way, but these days most (more?) of the stack bugs have been shaken out.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

I'm a network engineer and I run ipv6 natively in all of our datacenters. There are even a handful of end systems that have ipv6 native networking stacks with ipv4 sockets for our non-ipv6 compatible applications. IPv6 issues are basically self-inflicted at this point by companies that see their IT systems as cost centers, or by basilisk directors who's knowledge stopped in the 90's.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] EtzBetz@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago

I am hosting a few services on my LAN over IPv6, except for Plex, which I am tunneling through IPv4, since Plex itself used to have issues with IPv6.

It's always funny when friends complain that one of my services is down, it was 100% IPv6 not working/enabled/willingly disabled on their site yet.

[-] sgibson5150@slrpnk.net 18 points 1 year ago

I made an effort to learn it. In 2000. Again in 2012 or whenever the last big push was. If past is prologue, I may need to learn it again soon. 😆

[-] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 11 points 1 year ago

Ah, Dutch directness... Nothing says clear communication louder than the Dutch

[-] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 17 points 1 year ago

It's an edited image, but you are darn right. Proper communication is great

[-] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is in the style of the original, where during Covid the page on “Migrating to the Netherlands” simply just started with “Do not migrate to the Netherlands”, before expanding on the Covid restrictions on place and what foreign nationals currently in the Netherlands are to do.

On one hand: Now that's loud & clear communication. On the other hand, “Just don't” really ties in to the stereotype of Dutch directness/rudeness.

[-] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Being direct is not rude, in my opinion. I don't know why people need things so sugarcoated. Being direct, to me, is a sign of respect

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] electricprism@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Yup, the benefits don't outweigh the costs.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago

For individuals. There are tons of benefits for everyone collectively, but as is often the case, there's not enough incentive for any one person to bother until everybody else does.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] qpsLCV5@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

personally, i'd have pretty big benefits for my homelab if i could use my own ipv6 range for everything. having only a singe public IP is just very limiting.

sadly, my ISP does give out ipv6 for home networks, but i cannot connect to any of them from my mobile phone with the same carrier. so that's fun. they talked about rolling out ipv6 on mobile networks years ago, but i guess it'll take a few more....

[-] orangeboats@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I use IPv6 exclusively for my homelab. The pros:

No more holepunching kludge with solutions like ZeroTier or Tailscale, just open a port and you are pretty much good to go.
The CGNAT gateway of my ISP tends to be overloaded during the holiday seasons, so using IPv6 eliminates an unstability factor for my lab.
You have a metric sh*t ton of addressing space. I have assigned my SSH server its own IPv6 address, my web server another, my Plex server yet another, ... You get the idea. The nice thing here is that even if someone knows about the address to my SSH server, they can't discover my other servers through port scanning, as was typical in IPv4 days.
Also, because of the sheer size of the addressing space, people simply can't scan your network.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] smb@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

maybe start with an adjustable setup:

rent a cheap vm, i got one for 1€/month (for the first year,cancel monthly) from ovh currently
setup 3 openvpn instances to redirect all routes through the tunnel, one with ipv4 only, one with ipv6 only and one with both
setup the client on your mobile phone and your laptop both with all three vpns to choose from
have the option to choose now and try out ipv6, standalone or dualstack depending on what vpn you switch on
use this setup to blame services that don't support ipv6 yet or maybe are broken with dualstack 🤣
rise from under-the-stone (disabling ipv6 only) to in-sunlight (to a well-above-industry-standart-level !!! "quick" new network technologies adopting "genious") 🤣
improve your openvpn setup from above to be reachable "by" ipv6 too if you haven't done it from the beginning, done: reach the pro-level of the-late-adopter-noob-group

(if you want, ask for config snippets)

btw i prefer to wait for ipv8😁 before "demanding" ipv6 from services i use 🤣

Programmer Humor

Rules: