Skip to main content

New best story on Hacker News: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
630 by 9dev | 542 comments on Hacker News.
Our Hosting provider, Hetzner, has recently started charging for public IPv4 addresses - as they should! Those numbers started getting expensive. This prompted me to try and set up a new server cluster using IPv6 exclusively, and see how far I could get before having to give in and purchase an additional v4 address. The experiment ended much sooner than I had anticipated. Some of the road blocks I hit along the way: - The GitHub API and its code load endpoints are not reachable via IPv6, making it impossible to download release artefacts from many projects, lots of which distribute their software via GitHub exclusively (Prometheus for instance). - The default Ubuntu key servers aren't reachable via IPv6, making it difficult to install packages from third-party registries, such as Docker or Grafana. While debugging, I noticed huge swaths of the GPG infrastructure are defunct: There aren't many key servers left at all, and the only one I found actually working via IPv6 was pgpkeys.eu. - BitBucket cannot deploy to IPv6 hosts, as pipelines don't support IPv6 at all. You can self-host a pipeline runner and connect to it via v6, BUT it needs to have a dual stack - otherwise the runner won't start. - Hetzner itself doesn't even provide their own API via IPv6 (which we talk to for in-cluster service discovery. Oh, the irony. It seems IPv6 is still not viable, more than a decade after launch. Do you use it in production? If so, how? What issues did you hit?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New best story on Hacker News: Ask HN: I’m an FCC Commissioner proposing regulation of IoT security updates

Ask HN: I’m an FCC Commissioner proposing regulation of IoT security updates 449 by SimingtonFCC | 144 comments on Hacker News. Hi everyone, I’m FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, and I’m here to discuss security updates for IoT devices and how you can make a difference by filing comments with the FCC. As you know, serious vulnerabilities are common in IoT, and it often takes too long for these to be patched on end-user devices—if the manufacturer even bothers to release an update, and if the device was even designed to receive them. Companies may cease supporting a device well before consumers have stopped using it. The support period is often not communicated at the time of sale. And sometimes the end of support is not even announced, leaving even informed users unsure whether their devices are still safe. I’ve advocated for the FCC to require device manufacturers to support their devices with security updates for a reasonable amount of time [1]. I can't bring such a proposal