We don't talk about IPv5
-
I use IPv6 every day and everywhere I can. It solves so many issues in large corporate and ISP network setups. And yes 10. Wasn’t big enough, and NATing is a PitA.
Honestly we just keep pushing it off when it’s not that bad. Workaround after workaround just because people are lazy.
How much slack did you have in your 10.* network? Or was it literally 16.7 million devices?
-
Realistically no organization has so many endpoints that they need IPv6 on their internal networks. There's no reason to deal with more complicated addressing schemes except on the public Internet. Only the border devices should be using IPv6.
Hopefully if an organization has remote endpoints which are connecting to the internal network over the Internet, they are doing that through a VPN and can still just be assigned IPv4 addresses on dedicated VLANs when they connect.
If you don't have ipv6 internally, you probably can't access ipv6 externally. 6to4 gateways are a thing. 4to6? Not so much.
And this is why ipv6 will ultimately take another 20 years for full coverage. If it was more backwards compatible from the starting address-wise then this would all have been smoother. Should have stuck with point separators. Should have assumed zero padding for v4 style addresses rather than a prefix
-
Well of course, how else would you trick script kiddies that figured out when they DDOSed 127.0.0.1 and learned what a loop back was, and get them again in a few weeks with "ok ok my real address is 127.34.21.2"
Wait... I know 127.0.0.1 but what's the second one?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Skill issue
IPv6 is easy to do.
2000::/3 is the internet range
fc00::/7 is the private network range (for non routing v6)
fe80::/64 is link local (like apipa but it never changes)
::1/128 is loopback
/64 is the smallest network allocation, and you still have 64 bits left for devices.
You don't need NAT when you can just do firewalling - default drop new connections on inbound wan and allow established, related on outbound wan like any IPv4 firewall does.
Use DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD) to get your subnets and addresses (ask for a /60 on the wan to get 16 subnets).
Hook up to your printer using ipv6 link local address - that address never changes on its own, and now you don't have to play the static ip game to connect to it after changing your router or net config.
The real holdup is ISPs getting ultra cheap routers that use stupid network allocation systems (AT&T) that are incompat with the elegant simplicity of prefix delegation and dhcp.
-
I know its a joke but man its annoying to go from something that is organized in a human readable way to one where you have to rely on the system. I am someone who hates databases though so I have always been like this. Heck way back in the aughts I used to complain that my job involved more seeing and issues and fixing it and the systems were getting to were I feel more like im counseling it.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I do like how I can easily remember IPv4 addresses while I struggle to remember a single IPv6 address
-
Nah. You're just too stupid to understand the internet is designed to be used with DNS. The people who design these protocols and operate the networks that form the internet have no issues with DNS and don't care that you don't understand.
Funny how I never once criticized, or even mentioned, IPv6s complexity, yet that is the aspect you chose to so valiantly defend. Quite telling, isn’t it?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Just my perspective as a controls (SCADA engineer):
I work for a large power company. We have close to 100 sites, each with hundreds of IP devices, and have never had a problem with ipv4. Especially when im out in the field I love being able to check IPs, calculate gateways, etc at a glance. Ipv6 is just completely freaking unreadable.
I see the value of outward-facing ipv6 devices (i.e. devices on the internet), considering we are out of ipv4s. But I don't see why we have to convert private networks to ipv6. Put more bluntly: at least industry, it just isn't gonna happen for decades (if it ever does). Unless you need more IPs it's just worse to work with. And there's a huge amount of inertia- got one singular device that doesn't talk ipv6 at a given generation site? What are you supposed to do?
-
Just a heads up, you linked to the same article twice
Clipboards are also hard
-
Just a heads up, you linked to the same article twice
That’s odd, but truly sorry.
-
I do like how I can easily remember IPv4 addresses while I struggle to remember a single IPv6 address
Its really not possible to remember an IPv6. I mean it is but its really an abandonment on human level and a solution that leverage dhcp which was common anyway. Its about as easy as a hardware address.
-
Wait... I know 127.0.0.1 but what's the second one?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]A /8 subnet is basically everything after the first of the four segments, e.g. 127.*.*.*. marine_mustang was saying that loopback (what you think of as only 127.0.0.1) is actually an entire subnet, so any address that starts with 127 will hit the loopback interface. TIL, never thought about it much before.
-
Wait... I know 127.0.0.1 but what's the second one?
not sure if you are joking, but any valid IP4 address starting with 127. does the same thing, loopback. 127.0.0.1 is just the standard most people use, you could use 127.127.127.127, or 127.1.1.1 or any random numbers 0 and 254 for the second 2, and 1 and 254 for the last and the effects will be identical.
-
I think NAT is one reason why the internet is so centralized. If everyone had a static IP you could do all sorts of decentralized cool stuff.
Everyone having a static IP is a privacy nightmare.
There's a reason the recommendation in the standard for ipv6 had to be amended (it whatever the mechanic was) so that generated local suffixes aren't static. Before that, we were essentially globally identifiable because just the second half of your v6 address was static.
-
Just my perspective as a controls (SCADA engineer):
I work for a large power company. We have close to 100 sites, each with hundreds of IP devices, and have never had a problem with ipv4. Especially when im out in the field I love being able to check IPs, calculate gateways, etc at a glance. Ipv6 is just completely freaking unreadable.
I see the value of outward-facing ipv6 devices (i.e. devices on the internet), considering we are out of ipv4s. But I don't see why we have to convert private networks to ipv6. Put more bluntly: at least industry, it just isn't gonna happen for decades (if it ever does). Unless you need more IPs it's just worse to work with. And there's a huge amount of inertia- got one singular device that doesn't talk ipv6 at a given generation site? What are you supposed to do?
90% of industrial devices are still 100 Mbit/s.
-
That's nothing that can't be done with a good set of firewalls on IPv6.
This is equipment that uses all statically addressed devices. And ignoring the fact that IPv6 is simply unsupported on most of them, there are duplicate machines that share programs. Regardless of IP version you need NAT anyway if you want to be able to reach each of the duplicates from the plant network.
-
Nah. You're just too stupid to understand the internet is designed to be used with DNS. The people who design these protocols and operate the networks that form the internet have no issues with DNS and don't care that you don't understand.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm surprised by the comments here. I use 90% IPv6. For me v4 is only present for retro compatibility. The transition was hard however.
-
90% of industrial devices are still 100 Mbit/s.
I mean that's of the ethenet capable ones... a huge chunk are still serial
-
I'm surprised by the comments here. I use 90% IPv6. For me v4 is only present for retro compatibility. The transition was hard however.
Was?
It's still in progress..
-
I mean that's of the ethenet capable ones... a huge chunk are still serial
And the rest are pure analog
