Hacker News Reader

Comment by nfriedly | Hacker News Reader

I'm on metronet, which is a new-ish fiber optic ISP. They're exclusively IPv4 and they default everyone to CGNAT unless you call and complain - in that case you get a static IPv4 for free for a year and then $10/month after that (although another phone call usually gets another free year.)

I specifically asked for IPv6 and was told they don't offer that.

View on HN

This isn't universally true. They've primarily expanded by acquiring other companies, and a few regions do have IPv6. Lansing, Michigan in particular which was previously Lightspeed.

That being said, the CGNAT thing is just silly in 2023 - give us IPv6.

they're still going to have to CGNAT 65% of your traffic that's IPv4 only.

What's the source for that number?

I'd assume that when you have IPv6, the majority of your traffic (in bytes) will be IPv6 simply because all the CDNs and big video services do support IPv6.

Once my router at home crashed in a way that IPv4 stopped working but IPv6 kept on working and it was actually kind hard to figure out what went wrong because so much of the internet still worked fine.

65% is a lot better than 100%.

But the real number (at least on mobile networks) may be closer to 20%: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/2018/state-of-ipv6...

Thats also six year old data; a lot has happened since, especially outside the US. For example european connectivity rate has doubled, and the top 1000 websites is close to 50% now which is also almost double that of 2018.

At the very least they could use 4x6x4 instead of normal CGNAT, and bring down the costs.

I've gotten a /64 delegation from my cable ISP for almost a decade. There were some hiccups at first, but it's been working for a while now, to the point where I recognize issues with IPv4 as when my wife tells me "only Google and Netflix work"

They should be giving you a /56 or a /48 though, since you're not supposed to subnet a /64.

This is now so common, I expect the common software to adjust soon. You can still subnet below /64 with some patching or a more complex config. Software will match reality it exists in - we already did that for classless ipv4 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_Inter-Domain_Routi...

Why though? Classless ipv4 solves a real problem, handing out /64's not

It's the other way around. Handing out /64 is the problem, but you and I can't solve it - that's the ISPs stupid decision. People will continue solving this by making smaller subnets and I believe this will become an official solution in the future, because smaller subnets solve a real (even if artificially created) problem.

Is not subnetting /64 solving a real problem?

Obviously we couldn't subnet it back when we derived the last 64 bits from the MAC address. But since then everyone decided that's a bad idea, so why not use the address space?

I've found that even if the default is a /64, when you send a /48, /56, or /60 etc. DHCPv6-PD prefix-length hint, the ISP will often give it to you.

I think I can reconfigure DHCPv6 for a /56 (IIRC I need to talk to a person if I want a /48) but I only currently have one network at home, so shrug.

I'm on Verizon FIOS - they rolled out IPv6 a couple years back and it was so poorly rolled out and communicated (i.e., lots of things/services were complete broken) that I fully disabled IPv6 on my router and don't intend to reenable it until I have to...

That’s great to know. I’m literally watching them install in my neighborhood as I type this.

To be fair to metronet, aside from that and some hiccups during the initial install, I've been pretty happy with the service. The speed is fantastic, and it's been fairly reliable.

The price keeps slowly going up, but that seems to be par for the course with ISPs.

Admittedly, the time you know if a ISP is good or not isn't reached _until_ there's a problem. Because it's all about how they work with you to get it resolved.

I've heard of at least one isp that is IPv6 only and tells customers to use whois to find someone to help them with sites that don't work.

[citation needed]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com