News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by Symbiote on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @05:01AM (#14854594)

  $ host -t aaaa news.ycombinator.com.cdn.cloudflare.net.
  news.ycombinator.com.cdn.cloudflare.net has no AAAA record
But there's an option to turn it on, documented here: https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/200168746-H...
Re:IPv6 Adoption by ancarda on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @05:37AM (#14854775)
Hacker News used to have a GitHub repo somewhere on https://github.com/HackerNews/ where they hosted an issue tracker - several people raised this and their response was something along the lines of "we can't yet as our anti-spam code relies on accurate geolocation and some other things easier/possible in IPv4".

Unfortunately I can't find a link - I think they closed the issue tracker. Perhaps dang can comment? I'm typing from memory so it might be remembering incorrectly.

Re:IPv6 Adoption by michaelmior on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:55AM (#14855119)
Cloudflare has pseudo IPv4 for exactly this purpose

https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/202494830-P...

Re:IPv6 Adoption by eridius on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:40PM (#14861388)
It doesn't sound to me like those pseudo IPv4 addresses would be useful for geolocation.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by michaelmior on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:37PM (#14862518)
Good point, probably not. Although it does partially solve the problem.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by zubspace on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:39AM (#14855057)
Does someone know how to ban single users based on IPv6? Is this even possible? What is the alternative?
Re:IPv6 Adoption by EwanToo on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:46AM (#14855086)
It's not possible on IPv4 either, your IP is one of the easiest thing for you to change...

Browser/device finger printing is probably the best option at the moment, but you'll get plenty of false positives amongst privacy aware users who block fingerprinting.

Re:IPv6 Adoption by admiun on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:05AM (#14855156)
I think the rough IPv6 equivalent of a single IPv4 ban would be to ban a /64 subnet. This bans all users in that subnet which is the same as banning an IPv4 subnet hiding behind a single NAT address.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by kuschku on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @08:02AM (#14855425)
This would be the case, except home users can often get a /56 or /48.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by Asooka on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:49AM (#14856144)
I'd say the same way you ban them with IPv4. IP bans are trivial to circumvent, so those who won't bother to/can't circumvent them with IPv4, also won't with IPv6.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by mrkrabo on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:19AM (#14855225)
It's the same as in IPv4.

If the user has a static IP address, in IPv4 you ban a /32 (i.e., one address, his own). In IPv6 you'd have to ban the entire range allocated to the user, usually a /64. (edited)

If the user has a dynamic IP address, well, you're on your own. :D

Re:IPv6 Adoption by detaro on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:22AM (#14855236)
A /32 in IPv6 often is an entire provider, so that's not a good idea. A /64 is the closest to a single IPv4 address, (although some providers give each customer a /56 or so, for creating subnets).
Re:IPv6 Adoption by Symbiote on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:48AM (#14855359)
With CG-NAT on IPv4, banning a v6 /64 is no worse than banning an v4 /32.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by Cthulhu_ on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:44AM (#14855335)
The alternative is to let them post and just hide their stuff from other people; see https://blog.codinghorror.com/suspension-ban-or-hellban/ for example.

HN has a system like that, but it fails because some people can still see the 'hidden' / dead posts, and for some reason they then go and point out "your comment shows up as [dead]", which defeats the purpose.

Just ban people without letting them know.

Re:IPv6 Adoption by Sir_Cmpwn on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:50AM (#14855365)
Most people will tell someone they're hellbanned if their comments are benine and it doesn't make sense for them to be hellbanned.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by 3pt14159 on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @05:37AM (#14854772)
Can you explain to me what will happen if I don't turn on the AAAA record?

Like in theory of course I want to support IPv6, but in practice I've got a huge TODO list, and if there are present work-arounds that are doing good enough for now, I'd like to prioritise it correctly.

Re:IPv6 Adoption by ancarda on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @05:58AM (#14854860)
The two biggest arguments are Carrier Grade NAT and dodgy transitional stacks.

1) ISPs are increasingly deploying Carrier Grade NAT, which puts several people behind a single IP. This completely breaks end-to-end as you can't port forward but if you're running a website, the worst issue is if you ban an IP address, you could be cutting off several legitimate users to get rid of 1 person. It's like banning a whole country because of a few people which Wikipedia has done in the past by mistake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.148.97.69 see https://techcrunch.com/2007/01/01/wikipedia-bans-qatar/ This problem will only get worse as time goes on. The Internet is starting to feel broken when an entire country shares a single IP address.

2) In some cases, ISPs might address the shortage slightly differently, by serving up an IPv6 address that proxies back to your website over IPv4. To you it looks like Carrier Grade NAT, but you can actually do this yourself if you have an IPv6 enabled server (Linode, DigitalOcean work) and use nginx to reverse proxy. That way you can at-least set an X-Forwarded-For header that will give you better analytics and more precise blocking. Either you do it or the ISP will do it for you but give absolutely no data.

Re:IPv6 Adoption by danieldk on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:18AM (#14854953)
1) ISPs are increasingly deploying Carrier Grade NAT, which puts several people behind a single IP. This completely breaks end-to-end as you can't port forward

Carrier grade NAT breaks a lot of things in subtle ways. E.g. our ISP does DS-Lite to encapsulate IPv4 in IPv6. For months, our internet connection would sometimes seem dead for a couple of minutes. The router was fine and had uplink.

At some point I figured out that it often happened after a device woke from sleep and that IPv6 continued to work fine. It turns out that Bittorrent Sync was culprit. When a device woke up, BTSync syncs any changes and opens a boatload of connections through different ports. Apparently, the ISP's carrier grade NAT has some QoS where it starts dropping connections if too many ports are opened at the same time.

We shut down BTSync on all devices and never encountered the problem again [1].

At the time Bittorrent Inc. and later Resilio did not really seem interested to add IPv6 support.

[1] Of course, another theory is that they intentionally throttle Bittorrent traffic, but that doesn't explain why no IPv4 connections could be made while IPv6 worked fine.

Re:IPv6 Adoption by pdkl95 on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @08:18AM (#14855510)
> Carrier grade NAT breaks a lot of things in subtle ways.

All types of IP Masquerading[1] break the network in both subtle and overt ways. Without proper addresses, we've been s stuck for a couple decades having to work around "party lines" instead of developing real network software. Now that ISPs are starting to do this, some of the workarounds are no longer possible and the damage done to the network is becoming more obvious.

I hope we can successfully transition to IPv6 in the very near future, or the internet will finish transitioning from a powerful peer-to-peer network back into cable tv where we no longer have the ability to publish without an imprimatur[2].

[1] n:1 NAT using RFC 1918 private addresses

[2] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

Re:IPv6 Adoption by ancarda on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:24AM (#14854987)
I'm absolutely fucking amazed BitTorrent Sync, recently created peer to peer software, didn't have IPv6 since day one? IPv6 just makes P2P easier and more reliable as there's no NAT anymore. Why wouldn't you want that?
Re:IPv6 Adoption by mavendependency on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:37AM (#14855047)
Mobile carriers here are bringing back NAT on ipv6 now. Wannacry fears? NAT for the sake of firewalling? Phones still seem to get individual addresses.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by betaby on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:53AM (#14857290)
Which one? Really curious. Another point to mention, that I've seen mobile operators sends you multiple /64s, thus if you run in adnroid shell 'ip addr' you see one /64 while if you connect say to ripe.net it shows completely different IPv6 address from different range, while still no NAT. Perhaps that was your case, perhaps not. Details would be very interesting.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by p1mrx on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:25PM (#14860942)
If your address on ripe.net doesn't match any of your local interface addresses, then that's NAT (or perhaps a transparent proxy) by definition.

Well, in some environments, it's possible to bind() to an IP address that's not actually present on a local interface, but it's unlikely that your browser would support that.

Re:IPv6 Adoption by betaby on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @08:19PM (#14861600)
On other side I can ping IPv6 address of the tethered laptop. And for tethered devices ripe reported IPv6 matches interface. Indeed, transparent proxy / media gateway could be the case for the phone itself.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by fulafel on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:32AM (#14855279)
If anyone sees a mobile provider does this, please complain loudly.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by YtvwlD on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:00AM (#14855139)
You might be interested in Syncthing (syncthing.net). It works a bit like BitTorrent Sync, is open source and does support IPv6 (of course).
Re:IPv6 Adoption by andruby on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @05:39AM (#14854790)
This is why IPv6 adoption is slow. There are always more pressing issues.
Re:IPv6 Adoption by mrkrabo on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @05:23AM (#14854705)
Probably the software requires an update to support IPv6 addresses and they simply know it's not worth the hassle.