Diggin' technology every day

August 21, 2013

More IPv6 funnies…

Filed under: Networking,Random Thought — Tags: — Nate @ 5:56 pm

Random, off topic, boring post but I felt compelled to write it after reading a fairly absurd comment on slashdot from another hard core IPv6 fan.

Internet hippies at it again!

I put the original comments in italics, and the non italic stuff is the IPv6 person responding. I mean honestly I can’t help but laugh.

I was a part of the internet when it started and was the wild wild west.  Everyone had nearly unlimited ip addresses and NOBODY used them for several reasons. First nobody put everything on the internet.

That was then. Now is now. The billion people on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr don’t put anything online? Sure, it’s all crap, but it sure is not nothing.

It’s just Dumb to put workstations on the internet… Sally in accounting does not need a public IP and all it does is make her computer easier to target and attack. Hiding behind that router on a separate private network is far more secure. Plus it is easier to defend a single point of entry than it is to defend a address space from the world.

Bullsh*t. If in IPv4 your internal network would be, you can define an IPv6 range for that as well, e.g. 2001:db8:1234:10::/72. And then you put in your firewall:

2001:db8:1234:10::/72 Inbound: DENY ALL

Done. Hard? No. Harder than IPv4? No. Easier? Yes. Sally needs direct connection to Tom in the other branch (for file transfer, video conference, etc):

2001:db8:1234:10::5411/128 Inbound: ALLOW ALL FROM 2001:db8:1234:11::703/128

Good luck telling your IPv4 CGN ISP you need a port forwarded.

Second I have yet to have someone give me a real need for having everything on the internet with a direct address. you have zero need to have your toaster accessible from the internet.

Oh yeah? Sally might need that 30 GB Powerpoint presentation of her coworker in the other branch. Or that 100 MB customer database. Well, you know, this []. How much easier would that be with a very simple app that even you could hack together that sends a file from one IP address to the other. Simple and fast, with IPv6. Try it with IPv4.

It’s amazing to me how folks like this think that everything should just be directly connected to the internet. Apparently this IPv6 person hasn’t heard of a file server before, or a site to site VPN. Even with direct accessibility I would want to enforce VPN between the sites, if nothing else to not have to worry that any communications would not be encrypted (or in some cases WAN optimized). Same goes for remote workers – if your at a remote location and wanting to talk to a computer on the corporate LAN or data center – get on VPN. I don’t care if you have a direct route to it or not (in fact I would ensure you did not so you have no choice).

The problems this person cites have been solved for over a decade.

I’m sorry but anyone that argues that 2001:db8:1234:10::5411/128 is simpler than is simpler is just …not all there.

The solutions perhaps may not be as clean as something more native, though the thought of someone wanting to move 30GB of data over anyone’s internet connection at the office would be a very bad thing to do without arranging something with IT first (do it off hours, throttle it, something).

The point is the solutions exist, and they work. Fact remains that if you go native IPv6 your going to have MUCH MORE PAIN than any of the hacks that you may have to do with IPv4 today. IPv6 fans fail to acknowledge that up front. They attack IPv4/NAT/etc and just want the world to turn the switch off of IPv4 and flip everyone over.

I have said for years I don’t look forward to IPv6 myself (mainly for the numbering scheme, it sucks hard). If the time comes where I need IPv6 for myself or the organization I work for there are other means to get it (e.g. NAT – at the load balancer level in my case) that will work for years to come (until perhaps there is some sort of mission critical mass of outbound IPv6 connectivity that I need – I don’t see that in the next 5-8 years – beyond that who knows maybe I won’t be doing networking anymore so won’t care).

I’m sure people like me are the kind of folks IPv6 people hate. I don’t blame ’em I suppose.

There is nothing – absolutely nothing that bugs me about IPv4 today. Not a damn thing hinders me or the organizations I have worked for. At one point SSL virtual hosting was an issue, but even that is solved with SNI (which I just started using fairly recently actually).

The only possibility of having an issue I think is perhaps if my organization merged with another and there was some overlapping IP space. Haven’t personally encountered that problem though in a very long time (9 years – and even then we just setup a bunch of 1:1 NATs I think – I wasn’t the network engineer at the time so wasn’t my problem).

I remember one company I worked for 13 years ago – they registered their own /24 network back in the early 90s, because the people at the time believed they had to in order to run an internal network. The IP space never got used (to my knowledge) and it was just lingering around – the contact info was out of date and we didn’t have any access to it (not that we needed it, was more a funny story to tell).

When I set this server up at Hurricane Electric, one of the things they asked me was if I wanted IPv6 connectivity, since they do it natively I believe (one of the biggest IPv6 providers out there I think globally ?). I thought about it for a few seconds and declined, don’t need it.

IPv6 fans need to come up with better justification for the world to switch other than “the internet is peer to peer and everyone needs a unique address” (because that reason doesn’t cut it for folks like me, and given the world’s glacial pace of migration I think my view is the norm rather than the exception). I’ve never really cared about peer to peer anything. The internet in general has been client-server and will likely remain so for some time (especially given the average gap between download and upload bandwidth on your typical broadband connection)

Given I have a server with ~3.6TB of usable space on a 100Mbps unlimited bandwidth connection less than 25 milliseconds from my home I’d trade download bandwidth for upload bandwidth in a HEARTBEAT – I’d love to be able to get something like 25/25Mbps unfortunately the best upload i can get is 5Mbps – while I can get 150Mbps down — my current plan is more like 2Mbps up and 16Mbps down. results for this server. I had to try several different test servers before I found one that was fast enough to handle me. results for this server. I had to try several different test servers before I found one that was fast enough to handle me.

ANYWAY…….. I had a good laugh at least.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming..

May 7, 2013

Internet Hippies at it again

Filed under: Networking — Tags: , — Nate @ 8:50 am

I was just reading a discussion on slashdot about IPv6 again.  So apparently BT has announced plans to deploy carrier grade NAT (CGN) for some of their low tier customers. Which is of course just a larger scope higher scale deployment of NAT.

I knew how the conversation would go but I found it interesting regardless. The die hard IPv6 folks came out crying fowl

Killing IPv4 is the only solution. This is a stopgap measure like carpooling and congestion charges that don’t actually fix the original problem of a diminishing resource.

(disclaimer – I walk to work)

[..]how on earth can you make IPv6 a premium option if you don’t make IPv4 unbearably broken and inconvenient for users?

These same folks often cry out about how NAT will break the internet, because they can’t do peer to peer stuff (as easily in some cases, others may not be possible at all). At the same time they advocate a solution (IPv6) that will break FAR more things than NAT could ever hope to break. At least an order of magnitude more.

They feel the only way to make real progress is essentially to tax the usage of IPv4 high enough that people are discouraged from using it, thus somehow bringing immediate global change to the internet and get everyone to switch to IPv6.  Which brings me to my next somewhat related topic.

Maybe they are right – I don’t know. I’m in no hurry to get to IPv6 myself.

Stop! Tangent time.

The environmentalists are of course doing the same thing — not long ago a law took effect here in the county I am at where they have banned plastic bags at grocery stores and stuff. You can still get paper pags at a cost of $0.10/bag but no more plastic.  I was having a brief discussion on this with a friend last week and he was questioning the stores for charging folks he didn’t know it was the law that was mandating it. I have absolutely, not a shred of doubt that if the environmentalists could have their way they would of banned all disposable bags. That is their goal – the tax is only $0.10 now but it will go up in the future they will push it as high as they can for the same reason, to discourage use. Obviously customers were already paying for plastic and paper bags before – the cost was built into the margins of the products they buy – just like they were paying for the electricity to keep the dairy products cool.

In Washington state I believe there was one or two places that actually tried to ban ALL disposable bags. I don’t remember if the laws passed or not, but I remember thinking that I wanted to just go to one or more of their grocery stores, load up a cart full of stuff, go to checkout. Then they tell me I have to buy bags and I would just walk out. I wanted to soo badly though I am more polite than that so I didn’t.

Safeway gave me 3 “free” reusable bags the first time I was there after the law passed and I bought one more since. I am worried about contamination more than anything else, there have been several reports of the bags being contaminated mainly by meat and stuff because people don’t clean them regularly.

I’ll admit (as much as it pains me) that there is one good reason to use these bags over the disposable ones that didn’t really hit me until I went home that first night – they are a lot stronger, so they hold more. I was able to get a full night’s shopping in 3 bags, and those were easier to carry than the ~8 or so that would otherwise be used with disposable.

I think it’s terrible to have the tax on paper since that is relatively much more green than plastic. I read an article one time that talked about paper vs plastic and the various regions in our country at least – what is more green. The answer was it varied, on the coast lines like where I live paper is more green. In the middle parts of the country plastic was more green. I forgot the reasons given but they made sense at the time. I haven’t been able to dig up the article I have no idea where I read it.

I remember living in China almost 25 years ago now, and noticing how everyone was using reusable bags, similar to what we have now but they were, from what I remember, more like knitted plastic.  They used them I believe mainly because they didn’t have an alternative – they didn’t have the machines and stuff to cheaply mass produce those bags.  I believe I remember reading at some point the usage of disposable bags really went up in the following years before reversing course again towards the reusables.

Myself I have recycled my plastic bags (at Safeway) for a long time now, as long as I can remember.  Sad to see them go.

I’ll end with a quote from Cartman (probably not a direct quote I tried checking)

Hippies piss me off

(Hey Hippies – go ban bottled water now too while your at it – I go through about 60 bottles a week myself, I’ve been stocking up recently because it was cheap(er than normal) I think I have more than 200 bottles in my apartment now – I like the taste of Arrowhead water). I don’t drink much soda at home these days basically replaced it with bottled water so I think cost wise it’s an improvement 🙂 )

(same goes for those die hard IPv6 folks – you can go ahead, slap CGNAT on my internet connection at home – I don’t care. I already have CGNAT on my cell phone(it has a 10.x IP) and when it is in hotspot mode I notice nothing is broken. The only thing I do that is peer to peer is skype(for work, I don’t use it otherwise), everything else is pure client-server).  I have a server(a real server that this blog is hosted on) in a data center (a real data center not my basement) with 100Mbps and unlimited bandwidth to do things that I can’t do on my home connection (mainly due to bandwidth constraints and dynamic IP).

I proclaim IPv6 die hards as internet hippies!

My home network has a site to site VPN with the data center, and if I need to access my home network remotely, I just VPN to the data center and access it that way. If you don’t want to host a real server(it’s not cheap), there are other cheaper solutions like VPS or whatever that are available for pennies a day.

October 22, 2010

IPv4 address space exhaustion – tired

Filed under: Networking — Tags: , — Nate @ 11:21 am

Just saw YASOSAIV6 (Yet another story on Slashdot about IPv6)..

They’ve been saying it for years, maybe even a decade? That we are running out of IPs and we need to move to IPv6. It’s taken forever for various software and hardware manufacturers to get IPv6 into their stacks, and even now most of them haven’t seen much real world testing. IPv6 is of course a chicken and egg problem.

My take on it, from a technological standpoint I do not look forward to IPv6, not at all. Really for one simple reason – IPv4 IP addresses are fairly simple to remember, and simpler to recognize. IPv6 – forget about it. I’m a simple minded person and that is a simple reason I don’t look forward to IPv6.

I don’t have a problem with Network Address Translation (NAT), it’s amazing to me how many people out there absolutely despise NAT, I won’t spend much time talking about why I think NAT is a good thing because I have better things to spend my time on 🙂 [And yes when I’m not using NAT I absolutely run my firewalls in bridging mode again for simplicity purposes]

I don’t believe we have an IPv4 crisis yet, sure IANA or whoever is the organization that assigns IP addresses says we are low on that free pool but guess what, service providers around the world have gobs of unused IPs. I talk to service providers fairly often and none of them are concerned about it, they do want you to be smart about IP allocation however. I suppose if your some big company and want to get 5,000 IP addresses you may need to be concerned, but for smaller organizations who may need a dozen or two dozen IPs at the most – really nothing to worry about.

One thing I think could free up a bunch of IPs and allow IPv4 to scale even further is to somehow fix the SSL/TLS/HTTPS protocol(s) so that it can support virtual hosts (short of using wild card certs). I’m sure it’s possible but it won’t be easy to get the software out to the field to all the various edge devices in order to be able to support it. One company I worked at needed about a hundred IPs JUST for SSL (wild card certs were not an option at the time due to lack of client side support).

I know we’ll get to IPv6 eventually, and I’ll accept that when we get there, though it may be far enough out that I don’t deal with lower level stuff anymore so won’t need to be concerned about it, I don’t know.

Powered by WordPress