131–140 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never heard this idea before, but more octets would be a lot prettier!!
They added 12 more octets. I mean we could have written IPv6 addresses in the old format but I don't think that 42.0.20.80.64.1.192.15.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.113 is easier to remember than 2a00:1450:4001:c0f::71 (or 2a00:1450:4001:0c0f:0000:0000:0000:0071)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time to cash in?
Prices have been coming down for years in nominal terms, let alone real terms. Cg nat does everything that’s needed, there are no significant ip6 only services, there are plenty of ip4 only services, so you have to support ip4 anyway, so why bother with ip6 My company has just turned off all ip6 connectivity for its corporate laptops because it’s considered a security risk. I disagree, but I do agree that having 4 an…
If your corporate laptops are running Windows, then you're going against the officially supported configuration of the vendor (Microsoft):
> Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is a mandatory part of Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 and newer versions.
> We don't recommend that you disable IPv6 or IPv6 components or unbind IPv6 from interfaces. If you do, some Windows components might not function.
* https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-serve...
> Cg nat does everything that’s needed […]
Except for making it convenient for end-user to, say, play P2P video games, or host Mindcraft servers, etc.
> […] and 6 alone sadly still doesn’t work reliably.
It's so unreliable that half of all Internet traffic uses it. It's so unreliable that Microsoft has been going IPv6-only in their corporate networks (a decade ago):
* https://labs.ripe.net/author/mirjam/ipv6-only-at-microsoft/
It's so unreliable that Google is now 99% IPv6-only/mostly on their corporate networks:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more mobile traffic, the more IPv6. Have a look at India, it is not as if everyone has a fibre connection running IPv6.
Here in Belgium it's the other way around. we've had IPv6 for over 10 years for basically all home internet, but mobile is still ipv4 only. Not sure why since it's all the same companies.
LTE arch with the PGW handles IP allocation to devices
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never heard this idea before, but more octets would be a lot prettier!!
You have not heard if before, because that is the most naive and stupid take imaginable. It is the “let them eat cake” of networking. It does not work like that. Put extra octets where exactly? Where would a hardware router put the extra bytes? Where would software with 32 bit buffers? You would still need to replace all of the software and hardware and have the exact same problem.
I made my homepage (www.makonea.com) support IPv6 too, but the number of people actually using it is much smaller than I expected. Is IPv6 really that widely used? I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is. Sometimes, when behind Cloudflare, I think even if someone connects via IPv6, it ends up coming through as IPv4
When hosting a server IPv6 doesn't make a huge difference beyond your logs will probably be a bit more accurate, people behind CGNAT where an ISP has multiple customers sharing a block of IPv4 will show up with their actual IPv6 address. They'll maybe also find it slightly quicker because they're not being funnelled through NAT gateways but realistically not enough to notice. From the user side IPv6 is great for me.…
Chances are they also skimping on other areas including over subscription. Choose a better isp if you want a better service.
Your “just open traffic to internal host 1 on your firewall is the same no matter if it has nat or not, unless you are using a non stateful firewall? Or perhaps your configuration layer splits the two for reasons.
How does IPV6 affect ip blocking. As a VPN user I wish it wasn't used as a metric for sites shaking you down.
I assume for aggressive blocking the only prefix size will change. What is a /32 for IPv4 might become a /64 or smaller for IPv6.
In America I've never had a non-mobile ISP offer IPv6. At this point it would be best to recognize the sunk cost and give up on the migration. IPv6 will never reach the 100% needed to turn off IPv4.
I think the future is bright and most problems will be solved by 2040, and almost all by 2050.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience not true in practice cause I have experienced way more issues with the IPv6 endpoints of sites than their IPv4 counterparts. This becomes noticeable when pipelines on IPv6 connected servers suddenly have random request/post failures to public services. Then either the whole service is temporarily having issues or there are a few bad IPv6 endpoints while all the IPv4 endpoints are fine. Seemingly this…
> This becomes noticeable when pipelines on IPv6 connected servers suddenly have random request/post failures to public services. Then either the whole service is temporarily having issues or there are a few bad IPv6 endpoints while all the IPv4 endpoints are fine. Do you have examples for this? I've never experienced this, and I've been using IPv6 for years. Also, how can you be sure that the same request to IPv4 wo…
This happened with pypi (IPv6 BGP routing problem caused by a bad route from one of our peers combined with their fastly CDN not reply to us on IPv6 from the other side of the ocean for some weird reason), but also with yum and apt mirrors (seemingly random problems with the IPv6 service or firewall of the remote endpoint), and various other web resources accessed from pipelines.
The solution always was to temporarily block the bad IPv6 endpoint(s) or temporarily completely disabling IPv6 on the server itself or on the squid proxy server for workloads without direct connectivity.
Obviously it also can be the other way around, but in practice it appears to happen less often with IPv4, and if it does things get addressed quickly instead of taking hours or days or weeks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested, apart from the chicken egg problem, what are things that you found bad about IPv6. What do you think is overengineered? I personally found that the features I interacted with were useful (SLAAC, address size, router advertisements, ...) and the changes made it cleaner (removal of broadcast for multicast, removal of fragmentation fields, ...).
> apart from the chicken egg problem "But other than that, Ms. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where's the privacy issue? That the server can figure out that two computers in the same house are different since your laptop and phone no longer share the same ipv4 address but instead have two ipv6 address? Your phone and laptop can just have multiple ipv6 addresses and rotate through them regularly... as apple does by default https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/seccb625dcd9/... Security? NAT is not a f…
They used to recommend using the MAC address. This was ok 30 years ago when a computer sat in an office on a desk but it makes it very easy to fingerprint a moving computer as it moves across different networks. Using a random address (Privacy Extensions) solves this problem though, but do we expect everyone to know what that is and check it's enabled? Mine wasn't enabled by default (on Linux) and I only noticed when…
* https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/seccb625dcd9/...
As does Windows (since Vista), and Android (8+).
So why are we still talking about this?