We don't talk about IPv5
-
I am sorry to interrupt, my ISP gave me an ipv6 address, but I just can't access anything through it even when I specify it in the firewall, maybe they are blocking this functionality because they sell static ips.
I can use dynamic DNS, the problem is I can't host over NAT444 without something like a VPN.
Still not been given an IPv6 address though.
-
That's the thing, you are still thinking in ipv4 terms, and that's ok. It's a different way to think of things using ipv6 and the proper way to configure them. No worries tho. Not like you are being forced to ipv6 for internal home networks.
Ok, so what would the equivalent be?
-
The backpacks themselves? I'm glad you asked. So, they each function on an actor model, where each potential state for each actor has its own address...
are there quintillions of states
-
are there quintillions of states
No, actually tbh the address space is the least of my worries. At this point I'm gonna be honest, the ants just don't wanna play ball
-
Ok, so what would the equivalent be?
Create a new /64 and don't give it a route to the internet.
-
My favorite thing to use IPv6 for is to use the privacy extension to get around IP blocks on YouTube when using alternative front ends. Blocked by Google on my laptop? No problem, let me just get another one of my 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 IP addresses.
I have a separate subnet which is IPv6 only and rotates through IP addresses every hour or so just for Indivious, Freetube and PipePipe.
Hah, do they not just block the whole /64? That's actually really funny.
-
Waiting for IPv8 when the delivery guy takes a slice and feeds it to me so I don't need to worry about greasy fingers.
The good ol' American ipV8 motor
-
This post did not contain any content.
bro just add another octet to the end of ipv4. That goes from 4 billion to a trillion and will most definitely outlast modern electronics and capitalism
-
And yet, in the real world we actually use distribution centers and loading docks, we don’t go sending delivery boys point to point. At the receiving company’s loading docks, we can have staff specialise in internal delivery, and also maybe figure out if the package should go to someone’s office or a temporary warehouse or something. The receiver might be on vacation, and internal logistics will know how to figure out that issue.
Meanwhile, the point-to-point delivery boy will fail to enter the building, then fail to find the correct office, then get rerouted to a private residence of someone on vacation (they need to sign personally of course), and finally we need another delivery boy to move the package to the loading dock where it should have gone in the first place.
I get the ”let’s slaughter NAT” arguments, but this is an argument in favour of NAT. And in reality, we still need to have routing and firewalls. The exact same distribution network is still in use, but with fewer allowances for the recipient to manage internal delivery.
Personal opinion: IPv6 should have been almost exactly the same as IPv4, but with more numbers and a clear path to do transparent IPv6 to IPv4 traffic without running dual stack (maybe a NAT?). IPv6 is too complex, error prone and unsupported to deploy without shooting yourself in the foot, even now, a few decades after introduction.
IPv6 is too complex, error prone and unsupported to deploy without shooting yourself in the foot, even now, a few decades after introduction.
Which is purely down to people not testing things before releasing them, because the support is there but there's layers of unnecessary stuff put in the way. Like I had an old ISP provided router that ran Linux, but the management UI was only ever tested against v4 networks so none of the v6 stuff was actually hooked up correctly.
Support in desktops and mobile devices is effectively 100%, but even in embedded hardware there's often full support, just not enabled correctly or tested.
-
This post did not contain any content.
fun fact, the RFC introducing NAT calls it a "short-term solution"
-
Also for home network I don’t won’t my IOT to have a real IP to the Internet. Using IPv4 NAT you can have a bit of safety by obscurity
NAT is not much different to a firewall though… just because the address space is publicly routable does not mean that the router has to provide a route to it, or a consistent route
NAT works by assigning a public port for the outgoing stream different to the internal port, and it does that by inspecting packets as they go over the wire: a private machine initiates a connection, assign an arbitrary free port, and sends that packet off to the router, who then reassigns a new port, and when packets come in on that port it looks up the IP and remapped port and substitutes them
that same process can easily be true in IPv6 but you don’t need to do any remapping: the private machine initiates a connection, and the router simply marks that IP and port combination as “routable” rather than having to do mappings as well
-
No, actually tbh the address space is the least of my worries. At this point I'm gonna be honest, the ants just don't wanna play ball
have you tried giving them tiny ant-sized balls
-
And yet, in the real world we actually use distribution centers and loading docks, we don’t go sending delivery boys point to point. At the receiving company’s loading docks, we can have staff specialise in internal delivery, and also maybe figure out if the package should go to someone’s office or a temporary warehouse or something. The receiver might be on vacation, and internal logistics will know how to figure out that issue.
Meanwhile, the point-to-point delivery boy will fail to enter the building, then fail to find the correct office, then get rerouted to a private residence of someone on vacation (they need to sign personally of course), and finally we need another delivery boy to move the package to the loading dock where it should have gone in the first place.
I get the ”let’s slaughter NAT” arguments, but this is an argument in favour of NAT. And in reality, we still need to have routing and firewalls. The exact same distribution network is still in use, but with fewer allowances for the recipient to manage internal delivery.
Personal opinion: IPv6 should have been almost exactly the same as IPv4, but with more numbers and a clear path to do transparent IPv6 to IPv4 traffic without running dual stack (maybe a NAT?). IPv6 is too complex, error prone and unsupported to deploy without shooting yourself in the foot, even now, a few decades after introduction.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]in the real world we actually use distribution centers and loading docks
because we can pass packages in bulk between large distances… in routing, it’s always delivery boys: a single packet is a single packet: there’s no bulk delivery, except where you have eg a VPN packing multiple packets into a jumbo frame or something…
the comment you’re replying to is only providing an analogy: used to explain a single property by abstraction; not the entire thing
we can have staff specialise in internal delivery
but that’s not at all how NAT works: its not specialising in delivery to private hosts and making it more efficient… it’s a layer of bureaucracy (like TURN servers and paperwork - the lookup tables and mapping) that adds complexity, not because it’s ideally necessary but just because of limitations in the data format
routers still route pretty much exactly the same in IPv6 direct or NAT, but just at the NAT layer public IP and port is remapped to internal addresses and ports: the routing is still exactly the same, but now your router has to do extra paperwork that’s only necessary because of the scheme used to address
-
Let me one up this. IPv4 NAT is like the pizza guy has to deliver to you, but you live in a gated community with a strict no visitors policy, which does not allow you to even mention what unit you're in, and none of the addresses in the community are registered with the post office or on Google Maps either. Instead, you tell the guardhouse you want to order, and they order the pizza for you. The pizza guy delivers to the guardhouse, and the guardhouse delivers the pizza to you.
IPv6 (with firewalling) is like a normal gated community, you order the pizza and include the unit number, and the delivery driver can deliver your pizza directly, as long as the guardhouse approves.
The difference is, with NAT, the guardhouse has to both guard (firewall) and route (keep track of all deliveries, and deliver) your packages, where with IPv6, the guardhouse (firewall) only has to guard (firewall) the packages.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]i kinda love that this explanation is so much more complex not because it adds nothing but precisely because it adds a lot of realism: NAT is actually just far more complexity and processing
-
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.
publicly addressable does not mean publicly routable… your router would still not arbitrarily connect untrusted external devices to internal hosts
NAT has the property of a firewall only as an implementation detail. replacing NAT with an IPv6 firewall in the router is an upgrade in every conceivable way
-
The one thing you can't do with IPv6 is yell the address across the room to the technician plugged into the switch trying to ping the node.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]no instead you yell the IP address and they spend 30min trying to debug why they can’t ping it or even get ICMP packets through and then you realise you yelled the private IP address and they were on the wrong side of the NAT
-
This post did not contain any content.
excuse me all my addresses have had letters in them
-
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.
there are duplicate machines that share programs
yes.. that’s why every machine has its own IP address… so that they can both use the same port and you don’t have to connect to crazy bullshit like https://myhomerouter.example.com:8443/
-
Good luck trying to find industrial stuff that supports IPv6, hell most of it is still serial.
I have legit heard that serial is security mechanism because it cannot communicate long distance like ethernet.
Of course you can do IPv6 magic that hides IPv6 from the end device, but nobody understands how that magic works.
Of course you can do IPv6 magic that hides IPv6 from the end device, but nobody understands how that magic works.
it’s not magic… it’s a firewall, and it works pretty much exactly the same as a NAT: a whitelist of IP and port combinations
-
Define "widely".
According to Google 46.09% of their traffic is IPv6 and most servers support it. It's mostly large ISPs dragging their feet.
I've never seen functional ipv6 except at university, and I would only consider gci large in terms of coverage area and price.
