Live data from Hacker News

Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network

varunpriolkar.com

31–40 of 106 posts

Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network

#31
Why though? What's the problem with ipv4?

I find it much simpler for troubleshooting etc to have simple IPv4 addresses. But cool that it can be done :)

I've switched off IPv6 on my router anyway, I haven't yet needed it. My provider didn't offer it last time I checked but when they do enable it I don't want it suddenly popping up against an untested router configuration.

Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically it's similar to ipv4, they try to assign the same address/prefix for the same MAC/DUID. The most common reason to lose your addresses is replacing your router. Hopefully new routers allow you to set the dhcpv6 DUID somehow...

I haven't experienced this. For me it's statically assigned but my guess is that the PON serial and/or MAC is being used or the customer ID. I think the ISPs have gotten very automated these days and everything seems to be some sort of SDN. It saves lot of labour hours in troubleshooting like customer forgetting their wifi passwords to their routers.

Interesting. Honestly I like having control over it, that would annoy me. I deliberately change the DUID in dhcpcd to force my public addresses to change every so often.

Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network

#33
post #8
post #6

Finally. I will now be able to run ~340 undecillion devices on my home network. I'll have the smartest "smart home" on the block.

I never understood the rationale of giving out /64 and /48 like candy after what happened with ipv4. I know it's still a massive increase in capacity and I know it makes the networking easier but it seems like we went from something that definitely won't run out (ipv6 addresses) to something that probably won't (number of /48 ranges)

I can think of at least two reasons why this isn't worth worrying about.

One is quantitative: you have to remember that 2^48 is a much much bigger number than 2^32. With 2^32 IPv4 addresses, you have about 0.5 addresses per human being on the planet, so right away you can tell that stringent allocation policies will be needed. On the other hand, with 2^48 /48 ranges, there are about 8,000 ranges per human being.

So even if you hand a few /48s out free to literally everyone who asks, the vast majority will still be unallocated. A /48 is only about 0.01% of what could be said to be a "fair" allocation. (And yet, a /48 is so huge in absolute terms that even the vast majority of organizations would never need more than one of them, let alone individuals.)

The other is that unlike, say, the crude oil we pump out of the ground, IP address ranges are a renewable resource. If you hand out a free /48 to every person at birth, then long before you start running out of ranges, people will start dying and you can just reclaim the addresses they were using.

Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network

#34
post #8
post #6

Finally. I will now be able to run ~340 undecillion devices on my home network. I'll have the smartest "smart home" on the block.

I never understood the rationale of giving out /64 and /48 like candy after what happened with ipv4. I know it's still a massive increase in capacity and I know it makes the networking easier but it seems like we went from something that definitely won't run out (ipv6 addresses) to something that probably won't (number of /48 ranges)

Yes. I wish they had simply used a more sane address length instead, and maybe given everyone 65535 addresses at most. More than enough for the craziest home lab ever.

Really, just adding 2 bytes to IPv4 would have fixed everything and made it a lot simpler to move over. IPv6 is overkill and I think that really hurt its adoption. I remember being at uni and being told "this is the next big thing". In 1993. And it's not even a big thing now. Not on the user side anyway, I can still access everything from IPv4.

Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network

#37
post #5

I can’t understand benefits of having ipv6. The only one is public ips but rest is just headache. In my home network I specify disabled v6 everywhere.

A site-to-site VPN of two previously unrelated local networks is a pure gamble with IPv4. It would be almost straight forward with IPv6.

Yes but these days overlay networks are a way more common practice for that, with their own benefits (overlay IPs are always encrypted)

Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network

#38
post #23

I can’t understand benefits of having ipv6. The only one is public ips but rest is just headache. In my home network I specify disabled v6 everywhere.

Public IPs is a huge huge huge benefit. Your connection is also faster because your IPv6 packets don't have to be processed by a centralised CGNAT.

That's only if you are behind CGNAT though. My fixed ISP doesn't use it.

Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network

#39
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv4 is pretty simple and good for LANs. Nothing wrong with sticking to it.

Matter requires IPv6

Huh, I have matter devices working here and IPv6 is off on my router and DHCP. And on home assistant too which does the matter router. Does it use link local or something?

Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network

#40

Why though? What's the problem with ipv4? I find it much simpler for troubleshooting etc to have simple IPv4 addresses. But cool that it can be done :) I've switched off IPv6 on my router anyway, I haven't yet needed it. My provider didn't offer it last time I checked but when they do enable it I don't want it suddenly popping up against an untested router configuration.

This video summarizes it nicely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Hy4JtBeQA

Post reply on HN