81–90 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One developer's "old and stable" is another developer's "filled with vulnerabilities that nobody will ever find let alone bother to fix because everyone assumes it's old and stable." IPv6 has been a draft standard since 1998. Get a better argument.
What other things we use daily are "draft standards"?
Am I the only one that hates IPv6 ergonomics? I have to transcribe IPv4 addresses all the time, I'd hate to try and do it with a 128 bit address. Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough?
Maybe a bit glib, but I see this as a good thing: a reason to finally fix whatever process requires you to transcribe IP addresses, which is a pain to do even with v4 ones.
As my home router only supports stateless auto configuration, it’s an additional friction point to have stable addresses. Oh, and since the /56 is assigned by my ISP, it sometimes changes, so I can’t just rely on addresses being stable.
I’m not saying that IPv6 is necessarily bad — we _need_ the extra address space! - but it definitely requires a different way of working and I haven’t completely cracked that nut myself yet. I’m almost at the point that I’m just considering using NAT with IPv6, but I fear the IP gods will spell an evil curse on me if I dare to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, I'd argue that ZFS would be better if they went with 64 bits, especially since it's 2^128 blocks, not bytes, or bits. I did the math and it was something like a decade of the worlds production of disks, in a single filesystem. I could somewhat understand if it was a distributed filesystem, but it's not.
According to back-of-the-napkin math, my home NAS has more storage than was manufactured globally in the year I bought my first computer. It doesn’t seem impossible that someone might have a single pool too big for 2^64 by the end of ZFS’s useful life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, well of course, if you have enough IPv4, there's not much IPv6 does for you. However if your a normal consumer with a single network visible IP (if that), it's REALLY useful. I've got a /60 (16 /64s'), and I have one per port on my router and it's quite nice to be able to get to anything inside my home network from anywhere on the internet. Filesharing, monitoring home automation, opening/closing my garage door,…
>to anything inside my home network from anywhere on the internet When you put it like that, it sounds kind of scary.
Am I the only one that hates IPv6 ergonomics? I have to transcribe IPv4 addresses all the time, I'd hate to try and do it with a 128 bit address. Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough?
There are plenty of reasons to dislike IPv6 that are much less shallow. Like, it's overcomplicated, not backwards compatible, doesn't actually solve the NAT problems for home users because of how ISPs work in the real world, etc.
What exactly is complicated, using hexadecimal in addresses? The IP packet format itself is as simple as ever, and management things are done in a more elegant way (ND runs over ICMP rather than ARP being sort of there on the side not-in-IP-at-all).
> not backwards compatible
Massive service providers like T-Mobile US who use NAT64 as the only way to connect to v4 hosts anymore would disagree.
> doesn't actually solve the NAT problems for home users because of how ISPs work in the real world
My ISP delegates me a /56. How else do ISPs work in the "real world"? I've heard of some giving out smaller networks but never something egregiously small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>to anything inside my home network from anywhere on the internet When you put it like that, it sounds kind of scary.
Why? This is what firewalls are for.
About 5 years ago, I asked the owner of my fixed wireless ISP if he was planning to support IPv6 and I received a 500 word email rant about the uselessness of v6. I haven't asked again. (I still get a 0/10 score at https://test-ipv6.com/ )
I have checked it many times before and score was reliably 0/10 before. Seeing your comment I decided to check it out on this site and guess what today score is 9/10.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe a bit glib, but I see this as a good thing: a reason to finally fix whatever process requires you to transcribe IP addresses, which is a pain to do even with v4 ones.
Definitely not a pain for a LAN. Case in point: navigating to your router’s web interface. Very easy to do with IPv4 to do, a pain with IPv6. As my home router only supports stateless auto configuration, it’s an additional friction point to have stable addresses. Oh, and since the /56 is assigned by my ISP, it sometimes changes, so I can’t just rely on addresses being stable. I’m not saying that IPv6 is necessarily b…
I don't even know what's my workstation's IPv4 address. I just connect to desktop.local and my NAS with nas.local
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? This is what firewalls are for.
Because a firewall exploit means your thermostat is now controllable over the internet and you can conveniently preheat your oven over the internet too and now your house is burning down
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? This is what firewalls are for.
Because a firewall exploit means your thermostat is now controllable over the internet and you can conveniently preheat your oven over the internet too and now your house is burning down