Comment by Matuzy
4 days ago
> Yet another thing ipv6 solves. ... it's unlikely to conflict with the current global range
I'm not familiar with IPv6's details, could you elaborate on this? To me, this reads like you're saying that IPv6 solves the problem by having low adoption rates rather than an actual function of the protocol.
All global IPv6 addresses start with 2. This is by design. Pedantically, 3 is also reserved for global. Some other prefixes are also reserved, like fd for the ULA (local) range.
The point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long they are easy to manage.
>The point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long they are easy to manage.
lol, there is no doubt that had a massive opposite effect. To the point of nearly killing it in terms of willingness to adopt.
I know that on my hosted server, I never bothered to set it up, because I didn't know how to properly configure or sub-net it. I know it's skill issue, but really feels significantly more complicated and even harder to understand than NAT even.
Not to mention, at home, most of the ads I do see (PiHole) are IPv6 addresses.
26 replies →
How many /24s does your organisation have? With IPv6, one block is almost always sufficient.
3 replies →
The point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long that we don't run out of them in 20 years or so.
There fixed that for you.
The problem is NAT solved the same problem more easily and cheaply. It was at the cost of making it difficult for every host to talk directly to every other host, but it turned out most of the people building networks didn't want that feature anyway.
1 reply →
We already ran out of ipv4 about 15 years AGO.
64 bits would be enough to avoid run out, but hierarchical allocation would still be a problem. 128 bits is long enough for many levels of hierarchy. (And yes, you can subnet all the bits, not just the first 64)
The argument is that IPv6 addresses are UUIDs and any random block is unlikely to collide with any other random address.
It's not about low adoption, it's that there are unimaginably many IPv6 addresses.
...which is a major reason for why it has low adoption
Thanks for the reply. I'm reminded every now and then of the magnitude of the address space in v6. Then I do nothing with that information and slowly lose appreciation for the size again :)
https://xkcd.com/865/
Respectfully I don't think they explained it well.
fc00::/7 is for "Unique Local Addresses". Basically, private, non-globally-routable addresses from which you can freely pick space. Kind of like RFC1918. It's deliberately huge and you should only use as much from it as you need. The idea being that if you merge with another organization or connect to them via VPN, it's unlikely your addresses will collide like with RFC 1918.
There's even a website (sites?) to register your ULA space on a volunteer basis to reduce collision chances.
If you can't remember 192.168 you definitely can't remember a randomly picked ULA. So just use fd00. It's not any worse than 192.168.
True, I was thinking more about the allocation discussion than the "easy to remember".
Anyone in IT who allocates 1.1.1.0/24 because 192.168.0.0/24 is hard, should be allocated to trash pickup.
1 reply →