261–270 of 396 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By reducing header complexity, IPv6 contributes to better overall network performance and efficiency. This is especially noticeable in applications sensitive to latency, such as real-time communication and online gaming. https://www.prefixbroker.com/news/is-ipv6-faster-than-ipv4-a... .
This is the theoretical benefit. These have never materialize in real life. See https://community.cisco.com/kxiwq67737/attachments/kxiwq6773...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing that the GP is talking about the fact that if there were two persons in a household using the Internet at the same time, with IPv4 they would connect from the same IP address (though of course with different port numbers), but with IPv6 they would likely connect from distinct IP addresses, and usually only sharing a /64 prefix. You are correct that this isn't a big issue. SLAAC addresses are generally ch…
IPv6 privacy extensions are only switched around once a day or so in most default configurations. You can change that, of course, and switch addresses every minute if you want to, but I do find the default a little high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So that vast address space might not last as long as it would seem... Have you done the math? * math property: x^y = x^(a+b) = (x^a )x(x^b ) * IPv4 addresses are 32 bits (2^32 ) * 2^32 ~ 4.3 billion * So the IPv4 Internet has ~4.3B devices on it * IPv6 subnets are 64 bits, /64 (2^64 ) So, a IPv6 2^64 subnet is the same as (2^32 )x(2^32 ), which means (4.3B)x(IPv4 Internet). I.e., a single IPv6 subnet can hold the e…
Since you seem to know what you're talking about: Imagine a scenario where we have nano-bots to perform "repairs" in our bodies or whatever, and obviously each individual nano-bot use TCP over IPv6 because future software developers are also as lazy as us. Instead of taking paracetamol, people take nano-bot-shots which include (presumably) millions (or even billions?) of nano-bots that we inject into our bodies. Howe…
These do not have to be globally unique, just unique on the local network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't that mean if you move, or if your ISP changes your IP, all your local devices will end up with different addresses? I have an internal DNS server and it would be annoying if it could randomly break and require me to update all the IPs.
My local devices end up with new ipv6 addresses daily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPv6 privacy extensions are only switched around once a day or so in most default configurations. You can change that, of course, and switch addresses every minute if you want to, but I do find the default a little high.
Once a day is still way more frequent than most routers switch IPv4 addresses, so I'm not sure that the net result is any worse.
Identification to the level of IPv4 can still be done with IPv6 by using the /64 where you would previously take the /32, but with IPv6 you also get identifiers from within the network as well.
With how much IPv6 space is available, I'm not sure why SLAAC-based networks don't just assign different IP addresses to different use cases. I can see this becoming a problem on large company networks, but in home networks you could generate a random IPv6 address every hour for every website you visit and still never run out of address space.
Operating systems aren't exactly geared up for per-application outgoing IP addresses, and perhaps handling tens of thousands of IP addresses will bog down the kernel somehow, but in terms of privacy protection we could be doing a lot more than what IPv6 Privacy Extensions are doing right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
cool, but "read and change your data on all websites" is imho not worth the functionality. that seems ripe for takeover by some scammer.
IPvFoo author here. The problem is that there's no way to obtain the (hostname, ip) stream from Chrome/Firefox without requesting the "all websites" permission. In theory, browser vendors could define a narrowly-scoped permission that only reports (hostname, ip), or roll this functionality into the browser UI, but neither seems likely to happen. I made IPvFoo to promote IPv6 adoption, and wouldn't consider selling it…
I get fun questions from people when I screenshare and they notice the green "6" or the red "4" and ask about it. Sure it doesn't do anything fancy behind the scenes but that's also what makes it perfect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you seem to know what you're talking about: Imagine a scenario where we have nano-bots to perform "repairs" in our bodies or whatever, and obviously each individual nano-bot use TCP over IPv6 because future software developers are also as lazy as us. Instead of taking paracetamol, people take nano-bot-shots which include (presumably) millions (or even billions?) of nano-bots that we inject into our bodies. Howe…
IPv6 devotes a giant chunk of space to ephemeral link-local connections, if I recall correctly, at least a /64. So you'd need about 10^18 nanobots or so before you start to have to worry about link local address exhaustion. These do not have to be globally unique, just unique on the local network.
* https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-add...
Currently all public addresses are being assigned out of 2000::/3. The following are reserved for future (public?) use: 4000::/3, 6000::/3, 8000::/3, a000::/3, c000::/3.
Everything that starts with "f" is a special case, so the vast (vast) majority of address space is cleaved off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll downvote you AND I'll reply. It complicates firewall rules? How about pass everything out, keeping state, and block everything in, for all of your fragile devices that can't help but run services you can't turn off? There. Your IPv6 firewalling is done. Is that complicated? You can't see any benefits? Ok. So what does that have to do with HN being available over IPv6?
Because you can access a website on both ipv4 and IPv6 doesn't really make IPv6 all that useful because you could disable it and still be able to access the same resource using ipv4...
My, the luxury of not being put under a CGNAT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Verizon Fios recently rolled out IPv6 last year and I swear IPv6 traffic is deprioritized. Sometimes it just cuts out entirely.
Sounds like a technical problem. I don't see any reason they should de-prioritize IPv6 traffic...