Hacker News Reader

> Forcing people to use anything is never a good way to promote innovation.

Of course it is. That's how innovation happens. They are focused on overcoming a constraint of the system they operate within. In this case, it will be to get around the limitations of the private IPv4 network, or to make the upcoming IPv6 network easier and more appealing to use.

Most innovations are to overcome some sort of limitation, whether that is with a man-made system or just the laws of nature as we currently understand them. Unbounded innovation hardly ever occurs and usually results in some shitty mobile game.

Now that's not to say MIT IS&T isn't behaving extraordinarily shitty here. But this won't stifle innovation, just refocus it. Whether that's towards a more worthy goal is certainly up for debate.

Innovation will happen, but it is heavily misdirected.

What if I'm a biology expert and want to run a server to demo something cool? I should be spending my time doing innovation in biology.

What if I'm a deep learning enthusiast and came up with something cool to demo? I should be spending my time hacking at that.

What if I'm a physics student and want to start a blog?

The majority of MIT students are awesome innovators, but most are not innovators in TCP/IP. Forcing a bunch of people who are not networking specialists and sysadmins to deal with the lack of IPv6 support in the rest of the world is not going to promote innovation where it needs to be.

Running a server isn't demoing something cool in biology, coming up with something cool to demo in deep learning, or starting a blog. If these people are going to spend their time doing innovation in biology, hacking on deep learning, or writing about physics, they shouldn't be spending their time running a server or configuring IP.

Why not? It's 2017, and it's super-easy to spin up a server and code something cool to demo something you did in any of these fields. Or spin up an MVP of a random product idea you have. Never tell anyone that "they should not be doing something" when they want to. That too stifles innovation. The idea is to create a low-friction path for people to do what they actually want to do.

NAT is technological friction. Telling people that "they should not do something" is also friction.

What about even just learning to write apps in your own time? I built dozens of demo websites while I was a student there. A few were slashdotted. Having IPv4 addresses and access to bandwidth from my bedroom was a massive blessing.

The problem isn't configuring IPv6. The problem is without IPv4 you cannot easily make a server that is guaranteed accessible from anywhere in the world, by anybody. That's not a problem that most MIT students are in a position to solve or innovate in a short time. At least not without spending money for an AWS instance that frankly most undergrads don't have the money for.

Innovating in making an HTML5 app to demo your cool bioinformatics project on the other hand is a weekend hackathon deal.

And servers are basically free at MIT. You can just pick up and assemble them up off of reuse when labs throw away various parts. Plug them into your gigabit ethernet socket in your bedroom, get an IPv4 address, and you're up and running in less than an hour.

Why not?

You're the one who said people should be spending their time doing innovation in biology, hacking on deep learning, and starting a blog, rather than learning how to configure and deal with networking.

If anyone wants to do those things, they can do them now and not have to worry about installing and configuring servers and dealing with IP networking. Or they can work on innovating in networking.

The fact is, however, that no one is going to say "if my server wasn't IPv6 only, then people would read my blog". They'll most likely be saying that because there's a lot of other content to consume on the Internet, and attention is limited. And if that is the case, they can get a $5 a month digital ocean instance, or one from any number of other providers, accessible over IPv4 and IPv6, and serve both protocols to entire Internet.

Also, chances are, the audience for a physics student's blog is most likely at some university, which has a good chance of having a working IPv6 stack; especially now that MIT is going wholehog on IPv6.

It still makes no sense that forcing researchers and students at MIT to access the Internet through a NAT has anything to do with innovation in IPv6, though, unless you count all the innovative ways students are going to come up with getting around the IPv4 NAT... which is a pretty pointless exercise.

Forcing people to use anything is never a good way to promote innovation.

Two words: seat belts. The auto industry fought this tooth and nail, as did parts of the general public. But once this painful transition was accomplished, it resulted in a big improvement in automotive safety.

Other examples include EPA regulations that forced out the use of hazardous chemicals and processes. This, in turn, also produced a notable series of entirely improved processes: better for the environment, and often cheaper costs and/or better end results (although not universally, to be sure). The potential for innovation had been present, but these mature industries had to be forced into innovation. The very concept that R&D might improve their bottom line as well as their externalized costs was practically foreign.

Creating seat belts is innovation. Creating regulation requiring cars to have them and passing laws that people have to use them is not innovative.

Quoth the parent to my post (emphasis mine): > Forcing people to use anything is never a good way to promote innovation.

You're arguing against a straw man. This is about the promotion of innovation. Yes, seat belts were innovative, and left to their own course were going nowhere. Some innovations face adoption challenges that go beyond the mere "meh" of "non-consumption". They are major social battles, requiring large and multi-faceted campaigns to succeed and overcome social inertia. E.g. for seat belts: regulations on manufacturing, laws and law enforcement campaigns, public education and marketing, etc.

I took "promote innovation" to mean "promote the creation of innovations" not "promote the adoption of innovations."

In the case of IPv6 I disagree. Every system administrator should have someone constantly pestering them about it 24/7. It's very important to the future of the Internet that it gets rolled out, otherwise we end up with a fundamentally asymmetrical Internet where endpoint devices are incapable of forming direct links with other endpoint devices. (Yes you can NAT hole punch but that is never going to be reliable without enough address space to fully connect the graph.)

Google is one of the worst offenders when it comes to dragging their butt on IPv6. Their cloud offerings have zero support, and some of their default Linux cloud images ship with IPv6 disabled in the kernel so that even if you run network virtualization software you don't get it. Much of their front-facing stuff supports it, but users can't actually use it for anything.

Microsoft comes next. Azure has no IPv6 to speak of.

Amazon is finally rolling it out. "Second tier" VPSes like Digital Ocean, Linode, and Vultr have had it for aeons.

> Even our Google Wifi access points don't support IPv6 in their latest firmware

They actually rolled IPv6 support out with their latest firmware.

I'm at sea at the moment, so I can only find the play store note: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...

"WHAT'S NEW

IPv6: Enable IPv6 on your Google Wifi."

If your access point wont pass IPv6 traffic - you should consider another AP vendor. I have plenty of older network gear that cannot do IPv6 - but it passes the traffic along un-molested.

I tried 4 different AP vendors (Asus, TP-Link, Cisco) and Comcast did not play nice with them. Random disconnects all the time. Only Google's worked without a hitch. But alas, no IPv6.

(I'm busy and don't have time to deal with this BS. I just need internet access that works.)

That isn't what Aloha was getting at, why is a layer 2 device (in this case a WiFi AP) even interacting with IP addressing? You should be able to run whatever you want, whether that be IPv4, IPv6, or your own custom protocol using raw ethernet frames (of which there are quite a few).

Also, what is this whole "Comcast did not play nice with them" trope? I've dealt with Comcast many times, and used Asus, TP-Link, Cisco (the DPC3010 modems are my favorite) and others with them without issue. They aren't even a factor in your internal network and whether or not IPv4 or IPv6 works in it...

So at home my Comcast connection works fine with most modems and routers without any problems.

At my startup's house:

- Using the Comcast default combined modem+router works.

- Using the Google Wifi AP with a DPC3010 resulted in the DPC3010 being bricked upon connecting to the cable line. This is after the DPC3010 was working fine at my home. That DPC3010 no longer works, even at home, and only gets a power light upon startup.

- Using the Google Wifi AP with a TP-Link modem works flawlessly. No IPv6 though.

- 3 other routers that work at home do not work at my startup's house with the TP-Link modem. Asus RT router gets a fake 10. address from Comcast, Xiaomi router stops responding after several hours, Cisco router gets no DHCP lease whatsoever. All three work at home, all flawlessly.

Comcast is unwilling to debug, saying that unless I use their official combined modem+router they will not provide support.

I still think the combined router/modem is the issue. I've worked with one of the combined router/modems with a Comcast business connection before. Very buggy, and Getting the static IPv6 and IPv4 is a herculean task. The Cisco DPC3010 has its own oddities. I would suggest looking at some of the newer cable modems that Comcast supports. If you need static IPv4 though, you have to use Comcast's equipment.

The combined one works, it's just devoid of features I want, hence the separate modem and router. As for the router the Google one is the only one that seems to work at my startup's place. The other routers I tried only work on my home Comcast line.

Honestly I would ditch the Comcast provided router, and bring your own cable modem and router. I can't count all the number of issues I've had with Verizon and Comcast provided equipment.

I am almost positive I saw IPv6 in the release notes for the latest Google Wifi app update, am I crazy?

You are correct: http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/06/22/google-wifi-onhub-up...

Thanks! I enabled IPv6 on my Google Wifi router. I see a Global inet6 addr in my ifconfig. IPv6 websites work. I can ping6 my machine from the outside. I can ssh -6 into my machine from other machines on the LAN. But unfortunately I still cannot ssh -6 into my machine from an outside computer.

It probably is firewalling all incoming IPv6 connections (?). The Google Wifi app has no settings about this. Googling and stackoverflowing for 10 minutes didn't find a solution. That's when I give up.

Sorry Google and the IPv6 community but I have more important things I need to be working on than dealing with this BS that never works the first time. Back to IPv4 and port forwards, which is working fine for me right now, and will let me get back to my work. :-/

When MIT rolled out IPv4, the world wasn't ready for it either.

"Rolled out" is different from "forced to use".

If I come up with a super-awesome computer vision algorithm and want to run a server in my dorm room to demo it, being forced to use IPv6-only when the school has enough IPv4 addresses is a stupid annoyance and will only reduce the number of people that can reach the website. Running on AWS or other IaaS service isn't an option for many students without much cash.

dheera really gets it! I can cruft decommissioned (but working) hardware from trash piles in loading docks; I cannot cruft AWS credit.

Google is known to be against new and safe technologies. Google Finance still uses Flash, and Android has the worst IPv6 support despite it being based on Linux. What's your point?