There's a reason most haven't moved to ipv6. ipv6 is a solution looking for a problem. What we really need is an ipv7 that takes the best of ipv4 and ipv6 instead of trying to force ipv6 down a reluctant user group.
I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
131–140 of 511 posts
Re: I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
#132My experience with IPv6. I have option to enable full dual stack with my ISP. After doing this I noticed that YT/FB/Google were significantly faster, however my kids started to complaing that some games began to have connectivity issues. Minecraft have problems to start. On a number of sites load time was noticebly longer. Switching off IPv6 as a experiment on one of kids PC solved all issues. My conslusion is that i…
Agreed- I turned on ipV6 and even tried turning off ipv4. All I found was a bunch of new, different problems to debug that were inevitably because somebody else somewhere doesn't support ipv6, or I would have to run some sort of bridge between the two networks. Of course this is for home where I don't need a gajillion publicly-routed IPs.
Re: I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
#133There's a reason most haven't moved to ipv6. ipv6 is a solution looking for a problem. What we really need is an ipv7 that takes the best of ipv4 and ipv6 instead of trying to force ipv6 down a reluctant user group.
It's not that the reluctant user group doesn't like IPv6, they don't like change.
Re: I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't answer your main question, but from what I recall, DHCPv6 is kind of necessary anyway. It's the easiest/main way for the client to receive DNS server information, even if default gateway discovery is now down through multicast. I believe there is another way, but the router has to support it and I forget what it's called.
RA (Router Advertisement) handles announcing the prefix for SLAAC addresses and DNS.
yes, but RDNSS is a relatively new option (only since 2007 ;) ), so some implementations ignore it.
Re: I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no downside to everything to be globally routable. It's completely orthogonal to firewalling. What is the risk you're picturing here? I'm really curious. Features like RFC4941/8981 mean nobody can infer anything about your network from the source addresses they see making requests out if it. If you want to use link-local V6 addresses and NAT to a global one, you can do that. But IMHO that's sacrificing one o…
I'm not saying there's any downside, I'm just saying it's not the magic bullet "this is why you should use ipv6" that everyone seems to think it is. It's a complete non-issue that nobody really cares about.
The point is that it gives you options. You might not want to have anything on a network reachable from the internet today, but next year you suddenly need that capability and it's useful to be able to take advantage of that, rather than wading through the buggy mess of NAT.
> It's a complete non-issue that nobody really cares about.
A significant number of people spend a significant amount of time trying to carve out and re-use address space in their existing IPv4 allocations and RFC1918 space. This becomes nightmarish the moment you start thinking about networks of any significant size and complexity. All of these problems go away with IPv6, and we care about that a lot.
Re: I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
#136Question from a (relative) IPv6 newbie that wasn't addressed in TFA: Let's say I have a very small home lab. I have a handful of hosts that get their IP addresses via DHCP from my router. In the router, DHCP and DNS are tightly coupled such that the router essentially always knows the MAC address, IP address and hostname of each device. Now I want to run IPv6 on this network as a first-class citizen. Since DHCPv6 is…
There is not really an equivalent for what dnsmasq does.
I ended up with bind and rfc2136 dynamic updates. Not all devices are capable of doing it, but it is what Active Directory does by default.
Re: I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe people don't want to disclose the number and purposes of interior machines?
To be fair that info is already available w/ port sequence analysis, the same machine will pick from the same set of ephemeral ports for outgoing connections. I'd say the time for vanity privacy arguments is over, I'm all-in for team globally routable addresses w/ firewalls just saying "yes" or "no" to connections instead of routers guessing at port mappings.
Port sequence analysis is stifled by SNAT though.
Re: I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Increased number of available IP addresses, improved security features, simplified network management, reduced network complexity, and support for new technologies. The adoption of IPv6 will lead to cost savings, improved network performance, and increased scalability. Scalability may not matter in the typical home network, but in an enterprise environment, the cost of up-keeping the network backbone is significant.
>simplified network management I keep hearing this, but it doesn’t seem more simple to me. My ISP won’t reserve me a /48, so I can’t control the management ips of devices on my network. The solution is apparently to set up dynamic dns, which I have no interest in doing.
Just split that /64 into smaller /80 subnets. If I were your ISP, I would be upset too.
The apparent issue here is that you're falling back to what's familiar- static IP addressing. How about mDNS?
Re: I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe people don't want to disclose the number and purposes of interior machines?
To be fair that info is already available w/ port sequence analysis, the same machine will pick from the same set of ephemeral ports for outgoing connections. I'd say the time for vanity privacy arguments is over, I'm all-in for team globally routable addresses w/ firewalls just saying "yes" or "no" to connections instead of routers guessing at port mappings.
> the same machine will pick from the same set of ephemeral ports for outgoing connections.
Ports on router are allocated by it and not client machines. So far my experience has been they're usually sequential without any preferrence.
Re: I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory, sure. In practice firewalls can be misconfigured. NAT doesn't have that problem.
NAT cannot be misconfigured? Really?
Unconfigured/not activated firewalls usually fail reachable; without explicit port forwarding or exposed hosts, NATs fail unreachable.