131–140 of 480 posts
fwiw, ATT charges me $15 for ~8 fixed ipv4 addresses on my gigabit plan. Even if we amortize against the total monthly bill of $113, we get ~$15 per IP. EDIT: I guess this is the cost to _rent_ an IP per month and not the cost of _owning_ an IPv4 address.
My ISP has one of the better options where you can permanently lease an IPv4 address for a deposit of $100 AUD. The lease is indefinite, and when you don't want it any more you get the $100 back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to go back further in time and hit the designers of IPv4 on the head for not making it forward compatible. IPv6 is as backward compatible as is possible within this constraint. You can embed IPv4 space within IPv6, there is NAT64, tunneling IPv6 over IPv4 and many other transition technologies. It's not possible to design a protocol that is any more backwards-compatible.
Vint Cerf has called the decision of it being 32 bits as silly and arbitrary, like having a car odometer with 40 digits. If he had pushed for more, he thought nobody would have taken him seriously. The idea of 32 becoming scarce was laughable. Also the complaint about ipv6 isn't a technical one, it's a usability one. Extending it to 48 bits would have been easy enough for people - like international calling. Those 16…
Also having 64-bit for the network address (and 64-bit for the device) does have certain benefits that make it easier to use than shorter addresses in practice for a single entity, since one can hierarchically model the network and do things like ::. So even in absence of DNS one doesn't quite have to remember 128-bit of information for every device.
Hopefully hosting providers putting an actual price on v4 usage will be the push that gets things rolling to v6.
They already do. An IPv4 costs about 5 dollars per month at current prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only network engineers should see or care about IP addresses. The fact IPv6 addresses use colons is why people don't use IPv6 is the worst take I've ever heard.
you've /never/ heard anyone call ipv6 long, confusing, and complicated? I've basically /only/ heard people say that. This is probably because the idealized world of "only network engineers" is leaky. Programmers, sysadmins, people trying to get their network printer to work, non-specialists have to interface with network addresses constantly. Saying they shouldn't is not a description of reality. Not everyone who nee…
I don't really understand the use case for typing up addresses either, copy pasting is going to be more precise, and if one can't read 8 quartet of letters one shouldn't be near networking equipment either.
Heck ibans are about as complex and the general population is coping just fine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only network engineers should see or care about IP addresses. The fact IPv6 addresses use colons is why people don't use IPv6 is the worst take I've ever heard.
But only network engineers pick the protocols used. You’re making life harder for the very people who should be your primary audience. PS: As a developer, I often read logs and go ”oh yeah, that’s just our satellite office IP”. 192.168.1.110 is the network printer, etc. There’s no hope of recognizing IPv6 addresses at a glance the same way.
IPv6 Excuse Bingo: * https://ipv6bingo.com
I don't run IPv6 on my home network. I try it about once a year, enabling it at the router (it's already enabled on my laptop). And then random stuff just doesn't work. Various websites hang, various widgets just don't load, etc. Then I turn it off and everything gets better again. I'be been too lazy to diagnose why exactly it doesn't work, I just figure it's easier to run with it off. At some point a website I reall…
kek - i too am waiting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big nations have already wargamed this scenario and have contingency plans in place. IMO we'll see this happen in our lifetimes.
Could starlink be a way to maintain global connectivity in the face of government control? Would they try to jam satellite connections?
We should probably consider whether the rent-seeking enabled by the scarcity of IPV4 addresses is one of the things holding back IPV6 adoption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IPv6 is as backward compatible as is possible within this constraint. Yikes, couldn't disagree with that more. There are a ton of things that ipv6 designers could have done to make the transition much easier. This is a (now quite old) blog post that is my "go to" that explains a lot of the problems with ipv6: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html FWIW I couldn't find the link to that post until finding it on one of…
That document has been going around for ages and is based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that one somehow can extend IPv4 in a way somehow, but remain compatible with IPv4-only clients. This is just not possible. Most of the other criticism is not relevant anymore, since we now have a lot of transition technologies that allow IPv6 clients to interoperate with IPv4 servers (this way around is possible since…
SLACC, interface-specific link-local address both look good in paper but cause lots real life headache.
When it works, it works; when it don't, you have to unlearn and relearn everything network before you could possibly understand the problem, let alone fixing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't run IPv6 on my home network. I try it about once a year, enabling it at the router (it's already enabled on my laptop). And then random stuff just doesn't work. Various websites hang, various widgets just don't load, etc. Then I turn it off and everything gets better again. I'be been too lazy to diagnose why exactly it doesn't work, I just figure it's easier to run with it off. At some point a website I reall…
Debian would just not run due to apt repositories being borked if ipv6 was turned on.
i was struck by an issue in this area a few years ago and i think it was fixed by tuning gai.conf to prefer v4 because there were some repo servers that had broken v6