IPv6

With the IPv6-only option, a host can indicate that it supports operation in an IPv6-only network. This is useful in combination with 464XLAT CLAT: IPv4 applications can connect to legacy addresses using a NAT64 gateway provided by the network. In this situation, the host can operate without IPv4 addresses assigned, and all network traffic is IPv6, without loosing connectivity to IPv4 hosts.

NetworkManager currently does not support CLAT, and thus, this new option is disabled by default. Various CLAT implementations exist (jool – out-of-mainline kernel module, upstreaming not planned; tayga – unmaintained userspace application, potentially performance issues), but are not suitable as a general solution.

An eBPF-based CLAT is already being worked on. Hopefully, we can see full IPv6-only support soon! This will enable IPv6-only home networks for the average user, assuming the ISP provides a NAT64 gateway. Connections to IPv4 hosts can be established using the NAT64 gateway, without any IPv4 connections in the local network or directly to the internet. For legacy devices in the local network, IPv6-mostly networks still provide local IPv4 connections.

2001:db8::/32

3fff::/20

cheering on the poor graph :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39099065

Im interested in thoughts for a scenario where you want to do small-scale multi-site activities, with site-to-site connectivity.

Here's a couple of constraints:

• you're not going to pay the money to get an assignment, you'll just have ISP global.

• your two or more sites will have different ISPs.

• You're doing VPN between sites instead of provider managed. The sites might be running some normal enterprise services like active directory, or other internal corporate norms.

• you might have the need for a backup Internet connection. Load balancing would not be required.

With the fact that the globals could change at a site, would you consider using ULA? Or just stick with global and update DNS in the event of change. I know there's a preference problem with ipv4 being chosen over ULA, so the ULA thing wouldn't be very easy unless you went straight v6.

If ULA, would you pattern/convention match the global in each site or create one organization wide ULA and assign it something like /48 per site?

What precautions do you take on gateways to ensure globals aren't used outside of the tunnel? ULA prevents this, but so does proper configuration I assume.

How would you do this?

I keep asking about ULA because I heard/read enough articles where the author says don't do it, but they seem to be geared at large enterprise or hosting where they would definitely get dedicated blocks, peering, etc. I'm interested in the little guy.

TIL that apparently capital one was assigned the entire 2630::/16 block...which is the largest assignment I've seen to date. Does anyone know of other absolutely massive allocations...are there even any others this large?

I've been using duckduckgo for years ever since I degoogled but I'm increasingly annoyed by its complete lack of IPv6 connectivity. I use NAT64 and so it works fine but it bothers me to use services that don't have v6. Does someone have a good non-google IPv6 search engine that's privacy respecting?

The only other example I'm aware of is dns.nic.in with 2409::

I wonder how bad search engines would penalize an IPV6 only site, is there any information on it?

Since I moved my server to ipv6 only federation broke. I'm guessing this server is acessible trough the cloudflare proxy, but the underlying server is unable to connect to mine

Edit:

This is what I get in the logs:

2023-09-27T19:17:23.955421Z DEBUG activitypub_federation::activity_queue: Activity https://lemmy.fbmac.net/activities/undo/506ed9a4-bfee-472f-8249-f802639eec8d was rejected by https://lemmy.world/inbox, aborting: Request error: error sending request for url (https://lemmy.fbmac.net/u/fbmac): error trying to connect: tcp connect error: Address not available (os error 99)

I think it kind of confirms, lemmy.world is unable to contact mine back.

What servers are really IPV6, so I can actually federate with something?

I'm curious about something so I'm going to throw this thought experiment out here. For some background I run a pure IPv6 network and dove into v6 ignoring any v4 baggage so this is more of a devils advocate question than anything I genuinely believe.

Onto the question, why should I run a /64 subnet and waste all those addresses as opposed to running a /96 or even a /112?

1. It breaks SLAAC and Android

let's assume I don't care for whatever reason and I'm content with DHCP, maybe android actually supports DHCP in this alternate universe

2. It breaks RFC3306 aka Unicast-prefix-based multicast groups

No applications I care about are impacted by this breakage

3. It violates the purity of the spec

I don't care

What advantages does running a /64 provide over smaller subnets? Especially subnets like a /96 where address count still far exceeds usage so filling subnets remains impossible.

Wonder if it's possible to have a internal ipv4 local address range that is natted to ipv6 public address on your router...

Has anyone messed with using the very large jumbo frames for IPv6 for anything like video transfer, or large file transfers?

I'm curious if anyone has done it for firewall overhead reduction too

A few weeks ago, Lemmy started using Service Workers, which Chrome associates with an origin (e.g. https://lemmy.world/) instead of a specific tabId.

IPvFoo had been ignoring these requests, which resulted in a lot of missing data. I just pushed v2.7 to the Chrome Web Store, so Lemmy should show a 4/6 again when it's published in a day or two.

The old version still sort of works if you Ctrl-Reload the page.

Their new modem/router doesn't support opening ports in the ipv6 firewall, so if you want to open ports, they recommend disabling ipv6 entirely. For ipv4, they no longer support forwarding ports from only specific source addresses either, which is way less secure. You can only forward ports from all source addresses. You also have to use their crappy app to add port forward rules, it's no longer available in the web ui. You can completely disable the ipv6 firewall in the web ui, but that wouldn't be safe.

Old motorola modem/routers could do all of the above.

It says it can do bridge mode at least, but it seems silly to need 2 devices just to open ipv6 ports.

How are routers being made now in 2023 that don't have proper ipv6 support? It seems crazy to me.

Hi. This is my first post on Lemmy.

I want to test going IPv6-only in my home. I already enabled IPv6 functionality on my router. I can get two addresses from it on my computer: 192.168.0.x and 2402:xxxx (sorry, cannot remember the full address). My router shows two WAN IP: 100.64.x.x and 2402:xxxx.

If I disable IPv4 DHCP on my router, my computer shows only the IPv6 address, but many websites break. Is it not possible to go IPv6-only?

Sorry if I am not clear, I am not good in speaking English.

I started to write this https://framagit.org/22decembre/ipv6-dns-proxy

in an effort to translate Miyuru Sankalpa's ipv6 proxy for CDN into python and use it in unbound (with unbound python module).

I'm on att for my home internet and unless you go to the effort to bypass their router (it does 802.1x authentication so it's a bit of a pain to do so), they only give you /64s via dhcpv6 prefix delegation, nothing bigger. You can request up to 8 of them though.

It looks like mikrotik can't request multiple prefixes in a single request, based on their documentation.

Edge routers look like they can if configured from the cli.

I've been using a linux box with dhcpcd and that works. Would be nicer if systemd-networkd supported multiple prefixes directly so I didn't have to try to get dhcpcd and systemd-networkd to try to play nice with each other since I use systemd-networkd for the lan side interfaces, wireguard, etc.

What other routers and dhcpv6 clients support requesting multiple prefixes in a single request? I'm looking to see if there's a better option out there than what I'm doing now.