451–460 of 511 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I have zero motivation to deal with IPv6. I also have all my IPv4 addresses memorized, and IPv6 addresses are too long to remember with all the hex-double-colon nonsense. If they could have turned 1.2.3.4 into 1.2.3.4.5.6 I'd probably use it, but instead they opted for some scary stuff that looks like d0ff::eefa::0010::faff:::://::92::0 which I'd rather not look at. Product management fail. Anyhow, IPv4 still wo…
Maybe the addresses wouldn't look so scary if you formatted them correctly. For example: d0ff:eefa:10::faff:92:0 (though there are currently no addresses in use that start with d.) Vanity IPv4 addresses like 8.8.8.8 exist because most addresses have been allocated, so companies with money can go hunting for nice ones. There aren't many IPv6 addresses like 2600:: because internet registries don't allocate them on purp…
OK I challenge you to rewrite the IP address you wrote without looking in 5 hours.
Then go try it again with something like 10.10.53.24.
See which is easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> It's a complete non-issue that nobody really cares about. Huh. IMHO it's the single most desirable feature, and the only reason I care about it at all. If you're approaching this from the home networking point of view, than I suppose I agree: even the most complex home network is just too simple for anything like this to matter much. As the network gets bigger, that sweet sweet global routability starts to make a l…
Fair enough. For me, this is a thing I literally could not care less about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that IPv4 is not forward-compatible and therefore there cannot be a protocol that is entirely interoperable. There can only be ones that are somewhat interoperable. And IPv6 has plenty of mechanisms that make things interoperable (NAT64, embedding ipv4 addresses in ipv6, etc.).
What we need is a pure 4 network to be able to talk to a 6 network - that's what it means to be interoperable. Going 6 to 4 is obviously required or otherwise 6 would be a useless protocol to begin with. Anycast routing plus tunnelling is one way to achieve 4 to 6. But the "ngtrans" team didn't accept this a transition plan, nor did they provide an official transition plan for migrating 4 to 6. Basically 6 has been a…
The article mentions NAT64, which works well for IPv6-only computers to talk to IPv4 servers. There is enough space in IPv6 to encode the whole IPv4 connection which makes stateless NAT possible.
The other mechanism is 464XLAT and MAP, where IPv4 isn't tunneled over IPv6 network, but encoded in the IPv6 address. 464XLAT is used heavily on mobile phone and uses software on the device. MAP requires support on gateway. MAP is stateless which is savings over carrier-grade NAT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the addresses wouldn't look so scary if you formatted them correctly. For example: d0ff:eefa:10::faff:92:0 (though there are currently no addresses in use that start with d.) Vanity IPv4 addresses like 8.8.8.8 exist because most addresses have been allocated, so companies with money can go hunting for nice ones. There aren't many IPv6 addresses like 2600:: because internet registries don't allocate them on purp…
> d0ff:eefa:10::faff:92:0 OK I challenge you to rewrite the IP address you wrote without looking in 5 hours. Then go try it again with something like 10.10.53.24. See which is easier.
If I wanted a memorable local address like 10.10.53.24, I'd pick fd53::24 or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fd::1 == 00fd::0001, which is reserved by IETF. The :: only expands to fill all-zero hextets.
Good catch, that is correct. Thank you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> separates groups of 4 while optionally :: abbreviates a bunch of 0's and leading 0's in groups are optional. The address can be longer, sure, but it's really near identical to dotted decimal beyond the lengths. Consecutive colons aren't readable or easy to remember.
Do you think we should write addresses like 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0001, or what else would you propose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good catch, that is correct. Thank you
...This thread shows that the ipv6 notation is more complicated. It's good to at least use a smaller address space on a LAN like this, but I want the basic decimal notation.