Post #1115805

2026-04-12 14:58 UTC

Every HackerNews post about IPv6 has some of the worst, most privileged, idiotic, vibe-coded, proprietary, ignorant, 16bit, capital-guzzling, unicorn takes I've ever known on the subject: - IPv6 addresses are too hard to remember. So? You're not meant to remember addresses, that's why we have DNS, write it down, literally a non-issue. - IPv6 is confusing and I don't want to learn something new. That's a personal issue buddy, either start reading or get left behind, that's what you said about AI right? More things than you depend on this transition. - NATing has solved the IP limit problem so there's no point. NATing is a plaster slapped onto brain bleed, easy and cheap, but ineffective, it causes a wide range of usability problems, such as blanket IP bans, restrictions on self-hosting, connectivity issue for VPNs both private and corporate. To make matters worse, the effects are significantly worse in poorer countries, while Europe, China and the USA have a bounty of IPv4s to use (though China's still aren't enough), India has been on critically short supply for a while now with reports of multiple NATed network layers being issued. Imagine if you got banned from Valo because your neighbour 4 districts away got caught cheating. - We've been trying for 40 years and it hasn't worked so let's give up. OK, we're going to give up on solving world hunger too then because that's clearly not getting anywhere, and the energy crisis too while we're at it, just shut it all down. Just because you personally haven't seen the progress or felt its effects doesn't mean its not happening, people smarter than you have been working on this before you were born, and at this rate might continue to work on it after you switch careers to Goose Farming. - IPv6 hasn't worked so let's just make IPv7. Insane take, despite how it looks, IPv6 support is extremely widespread and ready to go, the reluctance of big tech and ISPs is purely due to the cost implication and lack of enforcement, creating a brand new spec now would enforce another 40 year delay just to assuage your own personal opinion. - IPv6 is a security risk because the router isn't NATing. Misunderstanding of what NATing does. Even with a public-facing IP on every device, ports are still protected by the router's firewall. - IPv6 is a privacy issue because now you can easily identify every device in a home by its public IP. A valid concern, if it hadn't been identified and resolved with the Privacy Extensions to SLAAC that randomises your IP address after a set time period, mitigating the problem to that of your NATed IPv4 Public IP, if not making it more private by muddying the telemetry waters. #ipv6 #networking

Replies (20)

@aspensmonster@homestuck.fr 2026-04-12 23:01

@Baa@mk.absturztau.be I suspect ISPs and data centers view "restrictions on self-hosting" as an important "feature" of continued NAT+IPv4.

Open ##1115833
@Johann150@genau.qwertqwefsday.eu 2026-04-12 22:24

@Baa@mk.absturztau.be16biti might be stealing that as an insult >:3

Open ##1115834
@Stellar@mk.absturztau.be 2026-04-12 22:18

@Baa hackernews is stupid, and i found them idiotic since the day i saw someone make a "uv sterilizer" for a n95 mask.

Open ##1115835
@antsu@p.antsu.net 2026-04-12 20:45

@Baa One of my first blog posts ever was precisely to address some of these points. https://blog.antsu.net/ipv6-for-people-who-hate-ipv6/

Open ##1115836
@zaire@fedi.absturztau.be 2026-04-12 16:38

@Baa we need ipv6 because computers simply being properly reachable on the public internet by default is magic and would allow for so many cool things to happen so much more casually

Open ##1115838
@blindcoder@toot.berlin 2026-04-12 15:42

@Baa While all your responses are valid, they are all Service Provider issues to solve. As a user, I don't really care much. From my point, services I (want to) use do not work with IPv6 (Okta, Escape from Tarkov) but everything works with IPv4. Edit: Wait, I think Okta does have v6 now. Need to verify at work tomorrow.

Open ##1115841
@xeno@hexokina.se 2026-04-15 18:51

@Baa@mk.absturztau.be “NAT already fixed it” is crazy, anyone who has had to deal with NATs will tell you how much they just suck…. [this user was suspended because of an IP ban]

Open ##1183480
@koteisaev@mastodon.online 2026-04-14 17:15

@Baa > restrictions on self-hosting I guess restrictions on self-hosting will be here to stay even after transition to ip6 will be complete, because under reasoning of fight against email spam and so on "residential" ip6 addresses will still be brutally restricted not for technical reason but for sort of "political" reasons. > that's why we have DNS Normally DNS is nice thing to have unless when DNS becomes another instrument of censorship & control by removal "political dangerous" domains.

Open ##1183481
@koteisaev@mastodon.online 2026-04-14 17:08

@Baa Your post remind me about other thing I, a person who just see ip6 in news from time to time, heard about IPv6: "There are at least 2 implementations of IPv6 stack, like "China and everyone else". Is that true? I have some question about "You're not meant to remember addresses" Now imagine an admin who would not be able to spot attacker activity in logs, because start & end hexdecimals are the same (address poisoning similar to crypto "addresses" attack). Is it possible in context of ip6?

Open ##1183482
@awooo@floofy.tech 2026-04-14 09:59

@Baa Configuring IPv6 on a router: - set up firewall rules - add IP addresses to interfaces - done™ Configuring IPv4: - set up firewall rules - set up NAT and a bunch of port forwards because you only have one v4 (if you're lucky and not behind CGNAT) - oh shit now you can't communicate with your server over the public IP, time to also set up hairpin NAT! - wanna add a new device accessible over the internet? oh you better start remembering what ports everything is on, or just give up and set up a VPN to access everything, assuming it doesn't need to be exposed The worst thing about IPv6 is still having to set up IPv4 alongside it, I really want v4 to die

Open ##1183485
@lord@pleroma.lord.re 2026-04-14 07:13

@Baa it will be like metric system. the whole world moved to this standard except… usa. the whole world will adopt ipv6 except usa.

Open ##1183486
@niconiconi@mk.absturztau.be 2026-04-14 06:41

@Baa IPv6 is a privacy issue because now you can easily identify every home using the public 64-bit (if the ISP is penny-pinching, 70-bit or more) address prefix as a super cookie, lifetime varies but originally designed to be permanent. Use the Web long enough, a random web shop data breach would eventually allow everyone to link aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::random to your phone number or home address. In comparison, IPv4 address is either CGNAT or pooled. I think this is still a very real problem, but it's the cost of getting stable server connectivity. The solution is VPN, Tor, dedicated broadband for servers, as usual. Ironically, mismanaged ISPs are doing pooled IPv6 prefixes like pooled IPv4, unintentionally providing enhanced privacy at the cost of random outage (if your router does not implement Flash Renumbering protection, OpenWrt didn't until 2026). In theory users should be able to freely opt-in/out prefix rotations, and all rotations would be planned via router announcement rather than a forced "flash" one. But one can dream.

Open ##1183487
@chainq@mastodon.social 2026-04-14 06:25

@Baa The funny and sad part is, the arguments from both IPv6 proponents and opponents are usually wrong. The main problem with IPv6, that the world it was designed for never existed, and at this point likely never will. Apenwarr told this story on his blog almost 10 years ago (then posted updates to it later, see links on the bottom of the post, but the original is still a good starting point): https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810

Open ##1183489
@lettosprey@tech.lgbt 2026-04-14 06:12

@Baa oki, so hacker news isn't actually written by "hackers", I guess. Why be fighting ipv6? After starting to set up "cloud at home", ipv6 has become quite relevant for me. I am so happy our ISP provide it.

Open ##1183492
@goetz@ipv6.social 2026-04-14 04:53

@Baa Thank You for sharing. This is my thinking as well. To the last point, unfortunately all products using EUI64 are a pain in the a... but it is moving. New products in the EU using #EUI64 are non compliant after 11.12.2027 so hopefully it is only a matter of time. #ipv6 #networking #matter

Open ##1183497
@sakasana@mk.absturztau.be 2026-04-13 12:37

@Baa HN certainly has plenty of actual fools but I expect that any ipv6 thread will get astroturfed by ipv4 reseller trolls. they are the fossil fuel lobbyists of the internet

Open ##1183498
@tyrthecat@social.treehouse.systems 2026-04-13 12:26

Even with a public-facing IP on every device, ports are still protected by the router's firewall. @Baa thanks for this comment! Instinctively I always knew this, because NAT is not a security tool, the firewall is. Just because NAT and firewall are often coupled does not mean they have to be. It's such a simple explanation I can't believe it took me this long to actually get it!

Open ##1183499
@whitequark@social.treehouse.systems 2026-04-13 09:52

@Baa To make matters worse, the effects are significantly worse in poorer countries, while Europe, China and the USA have a bounty of IPv4s to use [...] it was my understanding that the US mobile carriers are at the forefront of IPv6 deployment in terms of volume, is that incorrect?

Open ##1183500
@kalleboo@bitbang.social 2026-04-17 12:43

@Baa I especially like the "nobody uses IPv6, it's failed” comments on the post that's literally about how over half the Internet now uses IPv6.

Open ##1350286
@mroach@ublog.mroach.com 2026-04-17 12:01

@Baa It blows my mind how many otherwise tech-savvy people think that IPv6 is inherently a security problem. I guess some people having lived their entire lives with NAT don't understand that NAT != firewall != router.

Open ##1350289