Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a valid adress, as a network engineer I've never used brackets.
Don’t fib
No fibbing. Network devices don't use brackets.
IPv6 is the only way forward
281–290 of 350 posts
Re: IPv6 is the only way forward
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
You also get this if you use mDNS, but without the ULA hassle and you get to use DNS names instead of hardcoding IP addresses.
mDNS is orthogonal to ULA. mDNS is for discovery and name resolution, whereas ULA is for IP connectivity. And mDNS operates at the link-local scope (link-local addresses), whereas ULA is scoped for the entire home network.
> mDNS operates at the link-local scope (link-local addresses)
This is not the case for the addresses returned. See eg https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6762
6.2. Responding to Address Queries
When a Multicast DNS responder sends a Multicast DNS response message
containing its own address records, it MUST include all addresses
that are valid on the interface on which it is sending the message,
and MUST NOT include addresses that are not valid on that interface
(such as addresses that may be configured on the host's other
interfaces). For example, if an interface has both an IPv6 link-
local and an IPv6 routable address, both should be included in the
response message so that queriers receive both and can make their own
choice about which to use. This allows a querier that only has an
IPv6 link-local address to connect to the link-local address, and a
different querier that has an IPv6 routable address to connect to the
IPv6 routable address instead.
Re: IPv6 is the only way forward
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to have an airgapped network, sure. For most people it doesn't make sense. You'll just get the worst of of both worlds.
RFC 7368 for home networks recommends the use of ULA locally. > A home network running IPv6 should deploy ULAs alongside its globally unique prefix(es) to allow stable communication between devices (on different subnets) within the homenet > When an IPv6 node in a homenet has both a ULA and a globally unique IPv6 address, it should only use its ULA address internally and use its additional globally unique IPv6 addres…
RFC 7368 is a 2014 "informational" (no ietf standing) doc so it's not a source for current IETF advice. Also it was part of the since closed "homenet" working group initiative trying to define some new stuff that did not get vendor uptake.
But in substance, if you have several subnets, then using ULA may make sense depending on what you're trying to do. However most home networks don't subnet.
Re: IPv6 is the only way forward
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Got in early” vs “invented it”?
> “Got in early” vs “invented it”? PSINet/Cogent got 38/8 in 1994: did they invent it? Ford got 19/8 in 1995: how about them? How many places and people/companies didn't have the ability to go to a RIR in the 1990s or 2000s and get an allocation because their local infrastructure (power, telecom) wasn't developed at the time? So because they got computers, fibre, smartphones later they're SOL?
They sponsored it
Re: IPv6 is the only way forward
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would you have to reconfigure your firewall rules when you're getting a new IPv6 prefix? Because the IP address of the target changes when you get a new prefix. There's some discussion in this[1] old pfSense ticket. With IPv4 you typically do address translation (NAT) and so the internal target address is not tied to the global address. [1]: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/6626
My consumer router uses iptables under the hood, so it accepts a mask in the firewall rule (so e.g. I can do ::0123:4567:89ab:cdef/::ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff as a target, and when my /56 changes, the rules Just Work™)
It seems iptables has been ahead there.
But I think it further strengthens my case, software support for IPv6 has been quite spotty over the years, which combined with the less-than ideal deployments out there has made things frustrating for many users over the past couple of decades.
Re: IPv6 is the only way forward
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
The brackets are only needed for URLs, scp, and a few other things, due to the fact that ports are specified with colons. Usually you don't see them in a CIDR.
Brackets are in the RFC
I looked through RFC 2373 and found precisely nothing. Which RFC?
Re: IPv6 is the only way forward
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on... that's the top comment on the thread you shared. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47355046 This article that "begs to differ" is inventing IPv6 all over again. It just refuses to call itself so. I quote from the top comment: >So you have to ship new code to every 'network element' to support IPv4x. Just like with IPv6. and >So you have to update DNS to create new resource record types [...] Just like w…
The key difference, you don't do dual stack, you can incrementally roll it out and get tangible relief, unlike IPv6. The point is less about the technology proposed, but the point that there could be an interoperable version of a next generation IP and IPv4. IPv6 did the braindead thing and completely threw out the idea of transition and interoperability for a clean slate. We're paying for it many decades later. Also…
Why are you still trying to claim this? v6 has transition methods and ways to interoperate coming out of its wazoo. It does pretty much everything you can do to work with v4. Nobody threw out the idea of transitioning.
> but the point that there could be an interoperable version of a next generation IP and IPv4
Yes, it's IPv6. The thing you linked basically took one of the interoperability methods of v6 and described it in weird terms.
You don't do dual stack with v6 either, unless you want to -- you can do the incremental rollout and tangible relief thing with v6 just fine. (But it turns out most people do want to do dual stack.)
Re: IPv6 is the only way forward
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
In IPv4 you only need to transmit IPv4 addresses. If the "cannot be" in parent post is referring to the exact byte disposition in packets, then I go the other way around to claim that I agree. Because the only way that a UTF8 character can pretend to be ASCII is because ASCII didn't use all of the 8 bits in a byte to begin with. Only way to have something similar in this case, would be that IPv4 didn't use all of the…
The protocol field in the ipv4 header seems like a reasonable choice. A value would be associated for ipv6 and if that value is chosen then additional header data follows the ipv4 header.
Perhaps you could use 41, the value already associated with doing this.
(What's up with people constantly suggesting that v6 should do things that it already does?)
Re: IPv6 is the only way forward
#289If UTF-8 represents the triumph of a design prioritizing backwards compatibility with an existing standard (ASCII) to facilitate a transition, then IPv6 is the cautionary tale of a design which could have made the transition simpler but did not.
Backwards compatibility point is interesting. Found this visual breakdown of IPv4 -> IPv6 transition. Dual stack and tunneling sections show how much complexity came from not having a clean migration path - https://vectree.io/c/ipv4-vs-ipv6-address-architecture-nat-a...
But there is a clean migration path to v6: you deploy it. How much cleaner can you get?
Re: IPv6 is the only way forward
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key difference, you don't do dual stack, you can incrementally roll it out and get tangible relief, unlike IPv6. The point is less about the technology proposed, but the point that there could be an interoperable version of a next generation IP and IPv4. IPv6 did the braindead thing and completely threw out the idea of transition and interoperability for a clean slate. We're paying for it many decades later. Also…
Why are you still trying to claim this? v6 has transition methods and ways to interoperate coming out of its wazoo. It does pretty much everything you can do to work with v4. Nobody threw out the idea of transitioning. > but the point that there could be an interoperable version of a next generation IP and IPv4 Yes, it's IPv6. The thing you linked basically took one of the interoperability methods of v6 and described…
Is this some kind of attempt at gaslighting? If IPv6 gave tangible relief, then IPv4 today would not be an important mainstay of the Internet. I recommend you read the article I posted, and see how different things could have been, and how completely botched IPv6 rollout has become, that it is just not taken seriously except by some die hard cultists and mobile/telco (which can be done because they pretty much get full configuration of your networking stack).
I guarantee, we will be having this same exact discussion 10 years from now. And then so on, and so on.