It looks like an in-kernel replacement for jool is coming https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260319151230.655687-1-ralf@...
That's fantastic news; there weird friction around NAT64 on Linux has been a real pain point.
Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
51–60 of 106 posts
Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
#52Earlier 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.
Yet.
Many ISPs are pushing v4 users into CGNAT so they're easier and cheaper to manage.
This is a big reason why Netflix and YouTube are on v6. To avoid the cost of service over v4.
Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
#53Do 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…
Ideally it'll be standard that your DHCP will assign you both an internet IP from your ISP-provided prefix (dynamic or static), and private IP from a ULA prefix, which can be made static through address reservation.
Don't use DCHPv6 at home. I tried: you will hate your life, lots of stuff doesn't support it. Android specifically has zero support for it, google says it never will.
Use SLAAC. It just works.
Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
#54I messed with this at one point and gave up when I realized every device would have a permanent externally addressable IP within a block that is basically linked to me (good luck trying to change your IPv6 /48 every month or whatever you get with consumer IP addresses) It’s probably not a big deal and NAT etc. is no protection but it gave me the heebie jeebies.
You know your external IPv4 address rarely changes and also basically linked to you too, right?
> your external IPv4 address rarely changes
Bad generalization. I'm sure policy about this differs a lot, but my consumer ISP definitely reassigns my home's v4 address periodically. I don't track it closely, but it seems that when my ONT power cycles more often than not it pulls a new v4 address.
Now, basing my privacy/security on this would be bad, but to GP's point, if I was using a static v6 block, not only would this address never change, each device in my LAN would have an extra identifier attached to it. External hosts wouldn't merely be able to identify "my house", but traffic from "my phone", "my kid's switch", and "my spouse's phone" would all have distinct addresses.
Of course, my ISP doesn't do v6 at all, so there's no dilemma :')
Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
#55Why 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
Thanks for sharing this! Every few years, i forget the "why" advantage of IPv6. :-)
Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well, if you've set it up then you're aware that you need conntrack; 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...
Well yes, a stateful NAT is stateful. But as that article notes:
> For most workloads, there’s plenty of headroom in the table and this will never be an issue.
And yes, if you're doing thousands of connections per second then you should evaluate things more carefully for performance, but again... That's rather a lot.
Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
#57I 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.
imo one huge benefit is that ipv6 is much easer for hardware to process.. ipv4 headers are messy and change size.
ipv6 headers are 40 bytes! routers have less thinking.
this visualisation might help to dive deeper - https://vectree.io/c/ipv6
Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you actually own that /48? In my experience the ISP generally fixes a /64 for each customer. So if in the future you change your ISP, you might want to keep the remaining addresses same while just using a script to replace the preceding /64 address.
My ISPs change the /64 more often. So I use the ULA a lot more often. My router runs its own DNS server and then it advertises this DNS server using a ULA address.
I have mentioned this elsewhere, but ISPs should make BYOIPv6 more common, not just to the Business customers.
Their are people like OP who do this via a VPS provider that supports BYOIP and then tunnel to the VPS network, so there is a demand.
Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if you've set it up then you're aware that you need conntrack; 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...
Well yes, a stateful NAT is stateful. But as that article notes: > For most workloads, there’s plenty of headroom in the table and this will never be an issue. And yes, if you're doing thousands of connections per second then you should evaluate things more carefully for performance, but again... That's rather a lot.
It's interesting that you'd think that.
Connection table of a single IP is as high (by default) as 16,383[0].
I've hit this limit personally, and due to limitations in stateful firewalling we had to move to stateless filters inside our network equipment instead.
[0]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-clien...
Re: Building a Mostly IPv6 Only Home Network
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 n…
[flagged]