71–80 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has been a long history of Huawei stealing IP as well as generating less than useful drafts/standards in the IETF. There are very real reasons to judge this book by its cover.
Sorry to be blunt, but there is a real reason the idiom existed for several hundred years. Perhaps you should read the book so we can have more civilized discussions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NAT is not so widely needed as it is in IPv4. If every device had a globally unique address, is there really a need for NAT?
Yes, because not every entity is an ASN with their own allocation, nor their ISPs will announce their addresses on a residential service, for instance. I have to resort to NPTv6 in my setup, as my ISP allocates IPv6 prefixes dynamically, breaking down IPv6 routing when they have some issue and drop/change the prefixes previously allocated to me.
It seems that this article is missing the forest for the trees. The biggest improvement will come not from the raw speed but from the entire IPv6 eco-system. For example, the new segment routing for IPv6 or SRv6 should improve the Quality of Service (QoS) for examples bandwidth, delay and jitter by having control at the edge. This is unlike MPLS where the control is done in the core itself and that's why MPLS is call…
Sadly not much stuff supports SRv6, and I'm not aware of many deployments.
[0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/GbWiie-bjQ_Bp1JK... [1] https://packetpushers.net/srx6-snake-oil-or-salvation/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet, while people keep saying that, ipv6 adoption only goes up every month. I'm having a hard time accepting "the ship has sailed" while my home outbound connections use ipv6 for more and more endpoints.
I think businesses are holding up wider V6 deployment. In a lot of them that I've worked with, you don't talk about v6 as it's either a thing no one wants to learn or has no value worth implementing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to be blunt, but there is a real reason the idiom existed for several hundred years. Perhaps you should read the book so we can have more civilized discussions?
Or perhaps you could link to a wider range of literature rather than try to get people to buy a $100 book
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As of I'm writing this google sees 50.03% of its traffic on v6. According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Maybe dominant is the wrong word, large might be better.
It says 36.89% here. Weird.
In many ways, IPv6 stacks are simpler than their IPv4 counterparts. The fixed packet headers are simpler and faster to parse, ICMPv6 includes both router and neighbour solicitation (as opposed to being separate protocols like ARP in IPv4), routers generally won’t fragment large packets in transit (instead giving way to Path MTU Discovery) and NAT is not so widely needed as it is in IPv4. That said, the fixed packet h…
> NAT is not so widely needed as it is in IPv4. If every device had a globally unique address, is there really a need for NAT?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because not every entity is an ASN with their own allocation, nor their ISPs will announce their addresses on a residential service, for instance. I have to resort to NPTv6 in my setup, as my ISP allocates IPv6 prefixes dynamically, breaking down IPv6 routing when they have some issue and drop/change the prefixes previously allocated to me.
I'm not sure incompetence on the part of the ISP really translates into a need for NAT. It's a useful workaround, to be sure, but what you need here is an ISP that handles IPv6 prefixes properly. There is no reason for the prefix delegated to a customer to change, ever. They should just assign it statically when they create the account.
Imagine you use an RV as a nomadic home office. You have a small LAN with a private server (file server, HTTP server for testing web sites, etc.), and you want that server to have a static IP.
Since you might be on RV park WiFi at one moment, cell data at another, etc., you can't use a static IP from an ISP.
But you can use the IPv6 private address range, and then you need NAT.
(Technically I guess you could do without NAT if you gave every host on your LAN two addresses: a private address and a publicly-routable one. But that might be more cumbersome.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure incompetence on the part of the ISP really translates into a need for NAT. It's a useful workaround, to be sure, but what you need here is an ISP that handles IPv6 prefixes properly. There is no reason for the prefix delegated to a customer to change, ever. They should just assign it statically when they create the account.
You might not have exactly one ISP. Imagine you use an RV as a nomadic home office. You have a small LAN with a private server (file server, HTTP server for testing web sites, etc.), and you want that server to have a static IP. Since you might be on RV park WiFi at one moment, cell data at another, etc., you can't use a static IP from an ISP. But you can use the IPv6 private address range, and then you need NAT. (Te…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure incompetence on the part of the ISP really translates into a need for NAT. It's a useful workaround, to be sure, but what you need here is an ISP that handles IPv6 prefixes properly. There is no reason for the prefix delegated to a customer to change, ever. They should just assign it statically when they create the account.
You might not have exactly one ISP. Imagine you use an RV as a nomadic home office. You have a small LAN with a private server (file server, HTTP server for testing web sites, etc.), and you want that server to have a static IP. Since you might be on RV park WiFi at one moment, cell data at another, etc., you can't use a static IP from an ISP. But you can use the IPv6 private address range, and then you need NAT. (Te…
Except that the IPv6 standard explicitly allows for two on-link prefixes for SLAAC. So in my home I have a ULA address range that is static, and all my devices get a SLAAC random IP from my ISP.
If my prefix changes, that doesn't change my ULA prefix and all DNS records will continue to function. My ULA is also advertised over BGP using Wireguard, so its automatically routable from VPN when I am on the road but I still want to reach internal resources.