7 ms·
> Yet another thing ipv6 solves. ... it's unlikely to conflict with the current global range I'm not familiar with IPv6's details, could you elaborate on this?
by Matuzy 2mo ago
> Yet another thing ipv6 solves. ... it's unlikely to conflict with the current global range
I'm not familiar with IPv6's details, could you elaborate on this? To me, this reads like you're saying that IPv6 solves the problem by having low adoption rates rather than an actual function of the protocol.
- vitally3643 2mo agoThe argument is that IPv6 addresses are UUIDs and any random block is unlikely to collide with any other random address. It's not about low adoption, it's that there are unimaginably many IPv6 addresses. ...which is a major reason for why it has low adoption
- inigyou 2mo agoAll global IPv6 addresses start with 2. This is by design. Pedantically, 3 is also reserved for global. Some other prefixes are also reserved, like fd for the ULA (local) range. The point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long they are easy to manage.
- ConceptJunkie 2mo agoThe point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long that we don't run out of them in 20 years or so. There fixed that for you.
- inigyou 2mo agoWe already ran out of ipv4 about 15 years AGO. 64 bits would be enough to avoid run out, but hierarchical allocation would still be a problem. 128 bits is long enough for many levels of hierarchy. (And yes, you can subnet all the bits, not just the first 64)
- ralph84 2mo agoThe problem is NAT solved the same problem more easily and cheaply. It was at the cost of making it difficult for every host to talk directly to every other host, but it turned out most of the people building networks didn't want that feature anyway.
- inigyou 2mo agoIt's been a strong centralisation pressure on the internet. Centralisation is bad.
- SV_BubbleTime 2mo ago>The point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long they are easy to manage. lol, there is no doubt that had a massive opposite effect. To the point of nearly killing it in terms of willingness to adopt.
- tracker1 2mo agoI know that on my hosted server, I never bothered to set it up, because I didn't know how to properly configure or sub-net it. I know it's skill issue, but really feels significantly more complicated and even harder to understand than NAT even. Not to mention, at home, most of the ads I do see (PiHole) are IPv6 addresses.
- DrewADesign 2mo agoIt seems to have absolutely terrible ergonomics as a technology, in nearly every conceivable way.
- inigyou 2mo agoIt's literally impossible to avoid long addresses being long or short addresses running out. One of those is a worse problem.
- DrewADesign 2mo agoThe length isn’t the only thing that makes the ergonomics suck. The lack of backwards compatibility sucks. The “you don’t have to use NAT anymore” is great theoretically, but it renders a lot of casual network maintainers mental model of network security obsolete without a clear and simple alternative. The shorthand is not intuitive (though it’s not CIDR-level counterintuitive). Really, there’s way too much about working in IPv6 that’s not intuitive with even very solid IPv4 network knowledge. So yeah, having to relearn a bunch of basic network knowledge that worked just fine for decades is a PITA, and I’m 100% positive a design process that focused more on the people that need to configure networks could have yielded a much friendlier, and therefore a much easier to adopt standard.
- unethical_ban 2mo agoRespectfully I don't think they explained it well. fc00::/7 is for "Unique Local Addresses". Basically, private, non-globally-routable addresses from which you can freely pick space. Kind of like RFC1918. It's deliberately huge and you should only use as much from it as you need. The idea being that if you merge with another organization or connect to them via VPN, it's unlikely your addresses will collide like with RFC 1918. There's even a website (sites?) to register your ULA space on a volunteer basis to reduce collision chances.
- inigyou 2mo agoIf you can't remember 192.168 you definitely can't remember a randomly picked ULA. So just use fd00. It's not any worse than 192.168.
- unethical_ban 2mo agoTrue, I was thinking more about the allocation discussion than the "easy to remember". Anyone in IT who allocates 1.1.1.0/24 because 192.168.0.0/24 is hard, should be allocated to trash pickup.
- inigyou 2mo agoalso easy to remember is 10.anything.anything.anything