111–120 of 123 posts
I 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.
Plus, most network admins think of you and aren’t so bold as to use the first subnet in the range, so I never had problems yet :)
Earlier 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…
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!
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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CGNATs should be using 100.64/10 instead of 10/8 to avoid this problem, but I don't doubt that there are significant deployments on 10/8 anyway.
The IETF really dragged their heels on CGNAT because they thought that IPv6 is easy™ (of course not, it's intentionally designed not to be "almost the same but wider" but include unworkable stuff like Mobile IPv6[1] which is just a fancy VPN) until they were forced to allocate 100.64.0.0/10 because some ISPs are not just using 10.0.0.0/8 but also US-DoD addresses (especially 11.0.0.0/8, because it's basically 10.0.0.…
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!
We did. It's called IPv6. It's 20 years old and still not usable universally. At the high end, like enterprise or telcos, it's fantastic. But at the grass roots level of residential and small businesses, it's still a nightmare.
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!
And we could represent the addresses with hex numbers separated by : instead of decimal numbers separated by .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we could represent the addresses with hex numbers separated by : instead of decimal numbers separated by .
That’d be kinda inconvenient with respect to the port number syntax in URLs, though.
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!
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…
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!
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.