What we could do is increase the number of IP addresses available. Just imagine if we enlarged the IP address space from 32 bits to 128 bits: Every device on the Internet could have a unique IP address!
[dead]
When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
101–110 of 123 posts
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#102I recently just changed my default subnet to 10.X.Y.... rolling two random numbers to make it highly unlikely my home subnet through wireguard would conflict with the subnet where I am connecting from.
I subtly remember that 10.x.y address space is widely used by CGNATs.
Are those usually visible to clients sitting behind routers though? I'm not super familiar but the things I'm seeing make it seem like that should only be visible IPs on the internal network of carriers which is not a place I am ever connecting from.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#103What we could do is increase the number of IP addresses available. Just imagine if we enlarged the IP address space from 32 bits to 128 bits: Every device on the Internet could have a unique IP address!
Interesting idea! But I think such upgrade would take years, if not decades, to get widely adopted.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#104What we could do is increase the number of IP addresses available. Just imagine if we enlarged the IP address space from 32 bits to 128 bits: Every device on the Internet could have a unique IP address!
Interesting idea! But I think such upgrade would take years, if not decades, to get widely adopted.
Or maybe a century.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting idea! But I think such upgrade would take years, if not decades, to get widely adopted.
Or maybe a century.
The thing is, this upgrade you two are praising is designed to satisfy the original article's needs and no one else's.
Why do all those devices need to talk to each other btw? It's never specified. Is it a user need or a data collection/spyware need?
In a world where security articles make the news saying that you could obtain access to something IF the attacker already has local root and IF the moon is in a quarter phase and IF the attacker is physically present in the same room as the machine and this means the sky is falling...
... we should be questioning why disparate devices on unrelated home networks need to talk to each other.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe a century.
The thing is, this upgrade you two are praising is designed to satisfy the original article's needs and no one else's. Why do all those devices need to talk to each other btw? It's never specified. Is it a user need or a data collection/spyware need? In a world where security articles make the news saying that you could obtain access to something IF the attacker already has local root and IF the moon is in a quarter…
There are completely legitimate usecases that are not "spyware" related for true end-to-end connectivity
For security there is still the firewall
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe a century.
The thing is, this upgrade you two are praising is designed to satisfy the original article's needs and no one else's. Why do all those devices need to talk to each other btw? It's never specified. Is it a user need or a data collection/spyware need? In a world where security articles make the news saying that you could obtain access to something IF the attacker already has local root and IF the moon is in a quarter…
Peer-to-peer requires that devices from different home networks talk to each other. Gaming, audio/video chat, screen sharing, file sharing (torrents), etc.
The whole idea of the internet from the beginning is that devices can talk with each other.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#108> But the moment two sites share the same address range, you have an ambiguity that IP routing cannot resolve. Writing PF or nft rules to NAT these hyper-legacy subnets on the local side of the layer3 tunnel is actually super trivial, like 20 seconds of effort to reason about and write in a config manifest. Like written the article, a device on the customer site is required. At that point you might as well deploy a r…
Support for IPv6 is notoriously bad in residential modems. They can barely run IPv4. In an enterprise, you can do it properly. But here we are stuck with the junk the ISP gave out. Customers don't care. You have to work with what you've got.
>Support for IPv6 is notoriously bad in residential modems.
No? Over here at (South) East Asia we have been deploying IPv6 for nearly a decade now. The users are getting their IPv6 connectivity. Before someone jumps out and shouts SeCuRiTy: the firewall is enabled by default.
I am not saying the support is perfect. I know some people moan about lackluster IPv6 configuration in many routers. But for 90% of residential internet users (who care about pretty much nothing but the ability to watch YouTube and browsing social media), it damn sure is.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#109What we could do is increase the number of IP addresses available. Just imagine if we enlarged the IP address space from 32 bits to 128 bits: Every device on the Internet could have a unique IP address!
That sounds apocalyptic. What if street addresses were unambiguous? Think of the security implications. Anyone could just walk into your house. Much better to just have "local street 10 b" etc.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#110What we could do is increase the number of IP addresses available. Just imagine if we enlarged the IP address space from 32 bits to 128 bits: Every device on the Internet could have a unique IP address!
The issue is that we DO NOT want every device to have a publicly routable IP address. It does make sense for some machines, but you probably don't want your your Internet-of-Shit devices to have public IPs. Of course you can firewall the devices, but you are always one misconfiguration or bug away from exposing devices that should not be exposed, when a local network is a more natural solution for what is supposed to remain local in the first place.