241–250 of 396 posts
It's about like a back end geek not knowing how to do loopbacks with their router....sheesh!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually IPv6 addresses are enclosed in square brackets when a port number is involved. But it's true that in many configuration files IPv6s are a nightmare to put in, especially because you never remember what syntax you have to use: sometimes you even have to duplicate semicolons (that's what Exim does...). But I think this is rather a convention problem for the config files, rather a problem of IPv6 addresses thems…
The IPv6 people must have known that : was a common way to separate IPv4 and port numbers. IPv6 was standardized 4 years after the URL format which used a colon to denote a port number.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPvFoo author here. The problem is that there's no way to obtain the (hostname, ip) stream from Chrome/Firefox without requesting the "all websites" permission. In theory, browser vendors could define a narrowly-scoped permission that only reports (hostname, ip), or roll this functionality into the browser UI, but neither seems likely to happen. I made IPvFoo to promote IPv6 adoption, and wouldn't consider selling it…
$10M for access to a pool of 100k (and growing) tech-savy users that are harder to hack than gen-pop? You guys, the 100k+, are lucky I'm not made of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure people said exactly this about IPv4 back in the days.
Can you even begin to imagine a use case that could come close to exhausting an IP space that is perfectly capable of assigning a /60 subnet to every single grain of sand on earth? That subnet is large enough to then assign an IP address to every individual atom in that grain of sand. For comparison, if we wanted to assign every living person on Earth a grain of sand, we would only need a few cubic feet of it (less t…
Of course we'd all be paperclips long before they need to worry about networking
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last time I looked into this (which was a few years ago), ISPs were allocating blocks containing billions of IPv6 addresses to anyone who paid a nominal sum. So that vast address space might not last as long as it would seem...
> So that vast address space might not last as long as it would seem... Have you done the math? * math property: x^y = x^(a+b) = (x^a )x(x^b ) * IPv4 addresses are 32 bits (2^32 ) * 2^32 ~ 4.3 billion * So the IPv4 Internet has ~4.3B devices on it * IPv6 subnets are 64 bits, /64 (2^64 ) So, a IPv6 2^64 subnet is the same as (2^32 )x(2^32 ), which means (4.3B)x(IPv4 Internet). I.e., a single IPv6 subnet can hold the e…
Imagine a scenario where we have nano-bots to perform "repairs" in our bodies or whatever, and obviously each individual nano-bot use TCP over IPv6 because future software developers are also as lazy as us.
Instead of taking paracetamol, people take nano-bot-shots which include (presumably) millions (or even billions?) of nano-bots that we inject into our bodies. However, they disappear after a week (or some other more realistic timeline).
Now, how many people can use these on a monthly basis before we run out of IPv6 addresses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure people said exactly this about IPv4 back in the days.
Can you even begin to imagine a use case that could come close to exhausting an IP space that is perfectly capable of assigning a /60 subnet to every single grain of sand on earth? That subnet is large enough to then assign an IP address to every individual atom in that grain of sand. For comparison, if we wanted to assign every living person on Earth a grain of sand, we would only need a few cubic feet of it (less t…
As parent said, I'm sure people made the exact same argument about IPv4 back in the day, but comparing it to something else.
And when IPv16 finally appears in the future, people will yet again make exactly the same argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The aliasing scheme is called DNS.
Clearly that is not sufficient enough for a variety of reasons else we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place
Background and current options, as I'm aware of them:
"IPv6 addresses are too difficult" objectors don't seem to want a solution to the ease-of-use problem that leverages aliases, because DNS is that. They want the ease of typing in IPv4 addresses without any overhead of setting up alias mappings or trusting local hosts' ideas of their own names. That's not possible, in general, with an addressing scheme that's 4x as big. The standard representation has tried to improve things with hex instead of decimal and collapsing the longest run of 0-fields. It could have used a higher base than 16 [1], but that would slow visual spot-recognition of an address. It could have dispensed with all the ':' chars, but that would prevent collapsing addresses and make chunking more difficult.
DNS as an aliasing scheme has many administrative forms. It can be configured per-machine with /etc/hosts (copied around manually, or with scripted or configuration management tools); on a trusted local network with mdns and ip autoassignment, if the network is trustworthy enough; or manually with a full-fledged DNS server, either private or public. More complex network environments leverage tooling to make DNS as painless as possible. The mappings still have to be configured and managed somewhere, even if that's separately per host via what hostname they each think they have.
It's also possible to assign stable, short local addresses that can be remembered and typed easily roughly on par with v4 addresses (10.0.x.1 vs fc00::x:1, which becomes shorter than IPv4 for x==0).
[1] See RFC 1924. Who wouldn't love to use addresses in the form of "4)+k&C#VzJ4br>0wv%Yp" ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the insistence of using /64s everywhere for networks frustrating. Any network larger than a /112 seems crazy, that's already 65k IPs per subnet. A /104 for every normal end user (256 subnets per user), or a /80 for massive companies like Capital One (4 billion subnets) should be more than enough.
There is a really practical reason behind this, and it is called "routers". Due to longest prefix match, you'll end up wasting resources on the networking hardware. And you waste both precious and expensive TCAM and LPM latency for matching the prefixes. So routers do optimize for anything shorter than /64, and have special lookup memory for /64 and /128. But nothing in-between.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grew up with IPv4 too but after learning and configuring my network for IPv6 I won't miss v4 at all. It's just so nice having each device with its real IP address rather than some private NAT thing. Then it's just firewall config if you want to run servers etc rather than messing with NAT configs.
Doesn't that mean if you move, or if your ISP changes your IP, all your local devices will end up with different addresses? I have an internal DNS server and it would be annoying if it could randomly break and require me to update all the IPs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a really practical reason behind this, and it is called "routers". Due to longest prefix match, you'll end up wasting resources on the networking hardware. And you waste both precious and expensive TCAM and LPM latency for matching the prefixes. So routers do optimize for anything shorter than /64, and have special lookup memory for /64 and /128. But nothing in-between.
This still not justifies a /16 allocation
Snark aside, very much agreed, and I don't like that they got away with it. It's precisely with the mindset of "we'll have enough" that companies like ford have a /8 or the DoD has more /8s that we can count. And with this mindset we'll run out of IPv6 the same we ran out of IPv4.