41–50 of 106 posts
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.
You now can have these devices connected to network called Internet.
Unlike IPv4 were the number of devices on the Internet in home network is one (the main router) or zero (in case if CGNAT) and the others just pretend.
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.
NAT is the devil.
If anyone replies to this with the myth that NAT is a security mechanism I will firmly, yet politely, point them to a network development course because they don't know what they're talking about and I'm sick of hearing it. It's not true, I will not entertain this falsehood anymore.
Wish I could use ipv6. My ISP doesn’t support it (yea, I know tunnels exists but then it’s just more pain than just using ipv4)
Do you actually own that /48? The problem with using the globally routable addresses internally is that your public /48 might change in the future, and and that will force you to change a bunch of internal stuff. I have my router set up to advertise two /64 prefixes on each LAN subnet: one from fddd:deca:fbad::/56* that I use for all internal communication, and one from 2001:5a8:xxxx:xxxx::/56 that is only used for t…
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)
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.
I don't know your background, but I find that the people who feel that there's nothing wrong with IPv4 have never done any work with UPNP or NAT. For them it's always "just worked" and they don't recognise what pain has gone into trying to keep it working well despite our usage of it bordering abusive. NAT is the devil. If anyone replies to this with the myth that NAT is a security mechanism I will firmly, yet polite…
And yes I know that NAT has the same effect as a "deny all inbound" on IPv6. Which is something I would set there too if I did use IPv6 so I'd still have to do hole-punching anyway.
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.
I don't know your background, but I find that the people who feel that there's nothing wrong with IPv4 have never done any work with UPNP or NAT. For them it's always "just worked" and they don't recognise what pain has gone into trying to keep it working well despite our usage of it bordering abusive. NAT is the devil. If anyone replies to this with the myth that NAT is a security mechanism I will firmly, yet polite…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know your background, but I find that the people who feel that there's nothing wrong with IPv4 have never done any work with UPNP or NAT. For them it's always "just worked" and they don't recognise what pain has gone into trying to keep it working well despite our usage of it bordering abusive. NAT is the devil. If anyone replies to this with the myth that NAT is a security mechanism I will firmly, yet polite…
I dunno, I've manually set up NAT (down to the sysctls and iptables) and it's... fine. There's a small learning curve, but it's small. You should of course run a firewall which NAT is not ; that's also simple and just basic hygiene.
Conntrack is not always your friend, and even when it is: it's adding a lot of overhead.
https://www.tigera.io/blog/when-linux-conntrack-is-no-longer...