71–74 of 74 posts
That IMVHO the real reason who stop the adoption.
Quasi related; how does one find out if your ISP is using CGNAT? I'm rather lucky in that my ISP recently started offering IPv6 (and somehow my workstation appears to be using it by as the default), but none of the other PC's on my network do. (Win11 change perhaps?)
I don't know of any ISP that will give you a public ipv4 address for free. More interesting is windows 11 auto configuring ipv6. Does you pc have a public ipv6 address starting with 2:: or fe80:: link local address? Quick ipv6 crash course. Instead of DHCPv4 (there is DHCPv6 but it's optional) being required for address configuations, ipv6 uses somting called Stateless address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC). Normaly your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afraid I don't follow. The way to express the design in a pure-IPv6 world would be that you use ULA addresses to reach the AWS services that you use and globally-routable addresses to reach the outside world. Given that the cost that we're avoiding paying with the mechanism I described in my previous post is the ongoing cost for globally-routable IPv4 addresses, I'm not sure what cost you're talking about paying.…
Running single stack hosts is absolutely a reasonable goal. If i have choice between running ipv6 and nat6to4, and ipv4, ipv6, and nat4, surely the former is both a simpler setup, and a further step towards a real full v6 internet?
Sure. I expect that it's not one that we will see most Internet-facing machines achieve in our lifetimes.
> If i have choice between running ipv6 and nat6to4, and ipv4, ipv6, and nat4, surely the former is both a simpler setup...
No. You already have an IPv4 stack in your OS, and I guaran-damn-tee you that your NAT64 setup is far more complicated than a NAT44 setup. [0]
> ...and a further step towards a real full v6 internet?
Sure. But there's no inherent value in dropping IPv4. The only thing wrong with IPv4 that's not also wrong with IPv6 is that it doesn't have enough address space. Moving more and more globally-reachable servers and hosts to IPv6 reduces the number of IPv4 addresses required, which solves the "not enough addresses" problem of IPv4.
[0] AFAIK, if you use NAT64, you either let both direct-IP connections [1] and inbound IPv4 port forwarding not work, OR you must use additional (substantially complex) software to make that work. So, either you break some software that happens to use IPv4, or you massively increase your system software complexity. Seems bad either way.
[1] That is, connections to IPv4 hosts without a pre-connection DNS lookup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afraid I don't follow. The way to express the design in a pure-IPv6 world would be that you use ULA addresses to reach the AWS services that you use and globally-routable addresses to reach the outside world. Given that the cost that we're avoiding paying with the mechanism I described in my previous post is the ongoing cost for globally-routable IPv4 addresses, I'm not sure what cost you're talking about paying.…
I meant the network admin costs, if you're having to run dual stack, and especially if you're getting a network setup where you can't fearlessly combine/add routes between any two subnets that you have. To my mind the key benefit of using IPv6, the thing that makes it worth doing at all, is to stop having to worry about address assignment and address collisions and local addresses; obviously you do still probably wan…
Yeah, the network admin costs don't double, they're marginally larger.
> ...you can't fearlessly combine/add routes between any two subnets that you have.
You can't do this with ULA subnets, either. The standard way to do ULA subnet calculation is collision-resistant, not collision-proof. There's NO central coordinating body to prevent collisions. While the odds of collision are VERY, very low, they're not zero.
The benefit is that you pretty much never have to renumber after network merges... it's NOT that you never have to check for collisions.
> To my mind the key benefit of using IPv6 ... is to stop having to worry about address assignment and address collisions and local addresses...
See above.
> ...if you can't get away from having to give all your hosts individual v4 addresses and keep track of them then frankly you might as well just stay v4-only...
This is nutty. If you don't get why Internet-connected systems configured with "NATted IPv4 + globally-reachable IPv6" is strictly better than "NATted IPv4 and no IPv6", I question how deeply you've thought about this.
> ...it sounded like you were talking about using a mix of v4 and v6 within the VPC...
Yep. See above.