301–310 of 399 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
P2P isn't just file sharing and home servers, for example the popular PS4/Xbox/PC game "Destiny" is all serverless P2P instances. I can't imagine an ISP banning you from playing PS4 games.
I recall reading that you could make P2P connections work behind a NAT by having an external server route the connections initially. Is this not true, or does it only work in some circumstances?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. You have to consider network effects. Even if IPv6 was completely perfect, switching on your own doesn't do any good. You need to get most of the network to switch to get the benefits. Given that there is always a cost to switching, people will consider switching when continuing on the old path will become more costly than switching.
>> ... the utter failure of v6. > Even if IPv6 was completely perfect... More specifically: "completely technologically perfect". Which is the point being made in this thread: the technical aspect is of only partial relevance. If IPv6 fails because of political problems, or "contextual ones" (like “we could make it technologically inferior but more readily backwards compatible; it would make it less awesome but easie…
Every major OS, network device maker, service and program supports it. I can't imagine it "will fail" in any way where everyone goes "ok, forget IPv6, let's move on to IPv7 it's the new thing" and the world says "phew, at last!".
> According to market researcher Gartner, over 1.5 billion smartphones were sold last year
That's an IPv4 internet of address-needing devices every couple of years, just in smartphones. World IPv6 day was 8 years ago in 2011, and then Vint Cerf said there were no plans for an IPv7, and 8 years later there still isn't an IPv7 coming from the IETF. https://www.networkworld.com/article/2200118/router/cerf--fu...
IPv6 can't "fail" for the same kind of reasons huge financial companies can't fail - there isn't an alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point (and reply) about memorization was good. Yes, I'm not constantly remembering "210.40.138.43" but enough tech people need to remember some of these things - for debugging, support, etc - that IPv6 is painful. Asking someone to verify an IPv4 in a dialog setting is doable - an IPv6 is not. I've maintained for 2 decades that simply adding another 2 slots for 0-255 would have opened up a greatly usable amount.…
I use copy and paste for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. I understand where you are coming from by adding a few more bytes to the address scheme but one of the things IPv6 was designed for was massive address aggregation which means really short routing tables. Your 192.192.168.168.0.0 (say) scheme does not go far enough. Also, your scheme needs to be efficient in the world of bits and bytes and I don't think it is. Yo…
> Another wrong in the name of IPv6: 64 bit IPv6 prefixes from an ISP means you can only have one subnet. No way to put your dodgy IoT stuff on its own VLAN.
Can't your router handle carving up a subnet just fine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use copy and paste for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. I understand where you are coming from by adding a few more bytes to the address scheme but one of the things IPv6 was designed for was massive address aggregation which means really short routing tables. Your 192.192.168.168.0.0 (say) scheme does not go far enough. Also, your scheme needs to be efficient in the world of bits and bytes and I don't think it is. Yo…
Sorry I'm not sure i understand: > Another wrong in the name of IPv6: 64 bit IPv6 prefixes from an ISP means you can only have one subnet. No way to put your dodgy IoT stuff on its own VLAN. Can't your router handle carving up a subnet just fine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in practice what that means is that the router's own IP is the destination and the packet ends up at a closed port. Unless of course you're talking about using NAT outside the context of the RFC1918/internet boundary, in which case you're absolutely right, but that wasn't what was being discussed.
Isn't it? I thought we were talking about NAT, not about RFC1918. Even NAT in combination with RFC1918 doesn't give you security. The use of RFC1918 would certainly limit the set of people that could connect to your LAN machines, but it would be hard to call the result secure since anybody sharing your upstream L2 network, plus your ISP and anyone who can trick, force or coerce them into cooperating could still acces…
Ok, so the L2 thing isn't unheard of, but otherwise these are relatively unrealistic scenarios to be concerned about, don't you think?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're observing might be your operating system's behavior. There is a privacy feature of IPv6 called "privacy addresses" (or sometimes "temporary addresses"). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941 Some (most?) operating systems rotate the v6 privacy address daily or more often. The benefit of this is a) address not transparently based on permanent ethernet hardware MAC address and b) changes over time. Both are m…
I can tell the difference between my prefix changing and adresses within a prefix changing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 3 problems with IPv6 - There is a lot in IPv6 that is different from IPv4. Ignoring if those changes are good or bad, it does make the transition harder. - IPv6 was promoted way before there was demand. To some extent it is good to prepare people (and vendors). But it does create the impression that IPv6 is a failure - Demand for IPv6 is highly asymmetrical. The party that is out of IPv4 addresses needs IPv…
More issues with IPv6 that are relevant for me as a techie: - Memorising an IPv4 address is about as easy as memorising a phone number, which is to say, fairly easy. I remember the iPv4 addresses of both my rental servers, every device on my home LAN, a bunch of public DNS servers if things go wrong, ...; there's no way I'm going to be able to do that for IPv6. - At least last time I tested it (more than 10 years ago…
The original tenet of the internet pretty much hinged on the idea that every person with a computer can host/self-publish information as well as consume other people's information in a distributed way. They will not have to depend on a centralized publishing authority.
I think v6 could have enabled this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 3 problems with IPv6 - There is a lot in IPv6 that is different from IPv4. Ignoring if those changes are good or bad, it does make the transition harder. - IPv6 was promoted way before there was demand. To some extent it is good to prepare people (and vendors). But it does create the impression that IPv6 is a failure - Demand for IPv6 is highly asymmetrical. The party that is out of IPv4 addresses needs IPv…
More issues with IPv6 that are relevant for me as a techie: - Memorising an IPv4 address is about as easy as memorising a phone number, which is to say, fairly easy. I remember the iPv4 addresses of both my rental servers, every device on my home LAN, a bunch of public DNS servers if things go wrong, ...; there's no way I'm going to be able to do that for IPv6. - At least last time I tested it (more than 10 years ago…
Although IPv6 doesn't have NAT, per se, it does have Network Prefix Translation (NPTv6). And some VPN services (FrootVPN and Perfect Privacy, for example) have already implemented that.
I hope (but am skeptical) that folks look at the overall failure of ipv6 from a deployment perspective to understand the root causes of why it failed (some may think "failure" is too strong a word, but I remember v6 being "just around the corner" in 2000, yet in 2019 I'm still connecting to a GCP database with v4). Coming up with a solution that looks like a huge technological advancement, with no real respect for th…
I hope (but am skeptical) that folks look at the overall failure of ipv6 from a deployment perspective to understand the root causes of why it failed (some may think "failure" is too strong a word, but I remember v6 being "just around the corner" in 2000, yet in 2019 I'm still connecting to a GCP database with v4). Coming up with a solution that looks like a huge technological advancement, with no real respect for th…