The time has come: we must enable IPv6 entirely

Pool Development
210

Shut up, you can’t, just a few providers that do it.

I think it is time for you to leave if you need such phrases.

The free ones typical do not support IPv6.

I used dynv6, no need to pay.

And then, your IPv6 shit changes all the time.

Like IPv4, but you blame IPv6 for it, for the reason that you like to
blame IPv6 and need pseudo-arguments.

IPv6 is a mess, needs to back to the drawing board. As in the Fritzbox port-forwarding won’t work if the address changes, does it?

You do not understand it again, Bas. There is no port forwarding at all
in the FritzBox, as it does not support NAT66.

I HATE IP6 the way it is. I makes no sense.

We know this, I am not in need of a parrot that repeats everything.

And ISP’s in Belgium make it DHCP, not STATIC ergo it’s useless and totally crap compared to IPv4.

And of course, such an ISP will give you a static v4 and you have to
blame IPv6 for the behavior. Can you please move to social media and
post the nonsense there?

You have to pay for it and hope the ISP doesn’t change your IP…as they do in Belgium. Then what?

And again a proof you do not understand it.

1 Like
212

Can you please stop with this nonsense here? Thanks.

4 Likes
213

Is it? IPv6 is useless. Turn IPv4 off, you will know soon enough it doesn’t work.

214

This can never work[1] if only because of source port exhaustion on the client side.

A single modern client often opens over 50 concurrent connections to load all kinds of stuff, like scripts and media from websites. If you limit a user to 50 ephemeral source ports, they couldn’t even load a full webpage, let alone run background apps (and that’s without even accounting for the TIME_WAIT state!).

[1] Unless you mean MAP-T.

215

Uh-huh…

Shut down all gas stations and 75% of cars stop working - clearly, electric cars are useless!

Also true right?

1 Like
217

No they don’t. They also use IPv4, and they can be software updated. So? Problem solved again.

218

Can we agree that designing new (non-NTP) protocols is outside the scope of this NTP Pool community forum?

3 Likes
219

Your proposal would effectively kill the modern internet’s performance just to save a legacy system. We’ve been transitioning to IPv6 for decades. The work is done. We only need to deploy more. A complete rewrite of the global DNS and TCP stack as you suggest would set us back to zero and would take even longer. And still it would create more bottlenecks than it solves.

221

By answering your question I would only let you continue this pointless offtopic discussion, so I won’t.

1 Like
223

This topic is about IPv6, as written in the title. If you want to discuss ideas for other protocols, feel free to do so somewhere else.

225

Do you?

Because it doesn’t feel that way.

This topic is only about one narrow operational aspect of IPv6: adding more AAAA records in the DNS of the NTP pool, alongside the single existing one at 2.pool.ntp.org. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not about replacing A records, just gradually introducing AAAA records next to them.

This has been explained multiple times already. I’m not sure whether the scope is being misunderstood or ignored, but the result is the same.

I’m starting to get the impression that this is less about the technical proposal itself and more about what feels like a deliberate effort to derail the discussion into unrelated topics.

1 Like
227

I’m about to summon our moderator @gfk to see if he has anything to say about staying on topic.

2 Likes
228

Why, because you don’t like the discussion? I’m still waiting why I’m wrong, you seem to think so.

IPv6 will never make it the way it is now, what is the point of having 2 internet’s where IPv4 just works and IPv6 doesn’t.

That is the issue. I keep saying, companies do not switch or spend money on something that have no ROI. You do not get this part do you?

229

Whether you’re right or wrong is completely besides the point. As @marco.davids wrote:

With the changes you are proposing, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not, you are barking up the wrong tree in this forum. As @avij writes:

You need to go to the IETF with your ideas, those are the ones that could make the changes that you desire happen.

1 Like
230

If that is truly your firm conviction, why not start a new thread where you strongly advocate for phasing out all 2,250 IPv6-enabled servers in the NTP pool instead?

It would certainly simplify quite a bit of backend complexity if that direction were taken seriously.

232

Please answer me this question? It could simply request (on the same port) are you NTP or NTPS server, then answer and make the connection, while the port is irrelevant.

You don’t seem to know the portmap or the tcpmux protocols. They
implement such a server, but both client and server need to support it,
which isn’t the case for NTP/NTPS.

Is this so hard to understand? Ports need to be free, DNS records should show the port. Yet they don’t.

The rest of the world doesn’t care if an old man from Belgium complains
about IPv6 being so, so bad and wanting to reimplement DNS instead,
which will take another 20+ years to have all machines upgraded. Other
legacy-loving people will also refuse and tell that the new DNS is
really, really bad.

1 Like
233

Why is this offtopic? I just solved the IPv4 Internet problem of not have enough addresses.
And why IPv6 is not needed.

Why invent the wheel again when the current wheel needs no improvement, just some minor tweaks to get it into the future.

Minor tweaks are not different to reinventing it at all, as they require
all clients and servers to be changed. That will not happen fast and the
implementations will be incompatible.

I understand that many do not understand this. IPv6 will never take over, as the costs are too high and IPv4 simply works. And will keep working the next 50 years. By then IPv6 will have died.

You can not force people/companies into something that costs a lot while there is no ROI.
That is the problem of IPv6, it makes no sense, it’s complicated and IPv4 just works.

Several large ISPs provide IPv6 to their customers to reduce load on NAT
machines. There was a talk at a RIPE conference about the costs of
implementing or not implementing IPv6, for this company it was cheaper
to implement IPv6.

Would you invest in something new that has 0% impact. No and neither do ISP’s and companies.

It seems you have no experience with ISPs that do CGNAT. Otherwise you
might have noticed that they are overloaded in the afternoon.

As such IPv6 is dead end unless they switch off IPv4 instantly…do you really think they will? Answer: NO!

The internet will not move to IPv6 as long as IPv4 works. It’s that simple. Deal with it.
Then why you complain that hard? It must be a serious issue for you that
the reality does not comply to your predictions.

234

I cannot help you if you cannot get it to work, Bas. Maybe learn how to
do it and then come back with specific questions instead of complaining
and complaining.

235

Simply no. Public IPv4 adresses costs you money, IPv6 comes for free. There are server parks which have IPv6 only internally and only a IPv4 gateway for legacy.

It might not be the time for IPv6 only, but the time for IPv4 only is over by a decade. This point of view is stuck in time, which is ironically here :wink:

1 Like
236

Wanting something is something different then how it works…and IPv4 work, IPv6 doesn’t.

Bullshit, as many people told you. The traffic statistics from certain
IX can show you that, but I assume you will not care.

Ask companies, I can tell you now, nobody cares about IPv6…they just add it, hope it’s a bonus.

Get real!

Get real and accept the fact that various ISPs provide it to their
customers. Some managers and controllers supported that and still do,
otherwise they would have stopped.

It might be hard, but the nonsense of an old man from Belgium will not
stop those companies.