I spent a week without IPv4 (2023)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Home IPv6 setup and addressing

  • Several people want a practical “how-to” for home IPv6: safe address choices, routing to internal services, VLANs, and firewalls.
  • Replies emphasize:
    • Use ISP-assigned prefix + SLAAC or DHCPv6; collisions are effectively impossible.
    • For private space, use ULA (fd00::/8) and tools to generate random prefixes.
    • ISPs typically delegate /56 or /60; routers then carve /64s per VLAN.
    • Servers can use stable addresses (MAC-based or manually chosen low host IDs) while clients use random privacy addresses.

Android, SLAAC, and DHCPv6 friction

  • Android’s lack of stateful DHCPv6 is a recurring pain point, especially for people wanting per-device static suffixes for monitoring and firewalling.
  • Running SLAAC and DHCPv6 in parallel can give devices multiple addresses, complicating source-address-based rules. Some accept this; others see it as unmanageable.
  • Workarounds include MAC-based policies, authenticated overlays, or dedicating separate /64s, but these add complexity.

Does IPv6 actually help home users?

  • Skeptics say you still need IPv4 (hotel Wi-Fi, GitHub, many sites), so hosting or “IPv6-only at home” yields little practical gain.
  • Supporters highlight:
    • Escape from CGNAT and strict NAT, better for gaming, P2P, and self‑hosting.
    • Simpler inbound access via global addresses instead of port forwarding.
  • Some users tried IPv6-only and quickly hit major holes (large sites with no AAAA), then reverted to dual stack.

Privacy, NAT, and security

  • Some view CGNAT and IPv4 NAT as privacy/security features: shared IPs and default-deny inbound by accident.
  • Others counter that IPv6 privacy extensions randomize host parts and that real protection should come from firewalls, not NAT.
  • Concern persists about IoT devices becoming globally reachable given weak consumer router security.

Address notation and usability

  • A big thread centers on human factors: IPv6 strings are seen as ugly, hard to remember and type, and the compression rules (“::”) confusing.
  • Proponents argue humans should use DNS, not raw IPs, and that manually assigned v6 addresses can be as simple as v4; critics insist poor UX has slowed adoption.

ISP, vendor support, and deployment reality

  • Experiences vary wildly: some ISPs offer robust native IPv6; others offer only flaky 6rd, no IPv6 at all, or CGNAT without v6.
  • Misconfigured or feature-poor routers (e.g., missing default IPv6 firewalls, broken 6rd, limited PD sizes) create outages and make users disable IPv6 “for sanity.”
  • Mobile networks are often IPv6-only with NAT64/464XLAT, while many wireline ISPs and hosting providers lag or lack clean tooling (e.g., PTR records, movable v6 addresses).

Meta: about the article/experiment

  • Some commenters note the “week without IPv4” relied on NAT64/DNS64, calling it more “IPv6 plus v4 emulation” than a true IPv6-only experience.
  • Overall sentiment: IPv6 works technically in many places, but operational complexity, UX issues, and partial ecosystem support keep widespread, confident use from feeling “prime time” yet.