• aliser@lemmy.world
    51·
    5 hours ago

    I don’t get how regular network works, ipv6 is like 10 times more confusing with all its prefixes and subnets

    • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
      2·
      3 hours ago

      I mean they dropped the parts of ip4 that are not used. They only multiplied the number of bits by 4, otherwise it’s the exact same ideas. The confusing part might be that a device gets multiple addresses off the bat. Using decimal for 128 bits would have made the address even worse.

  • ikoz@programming.dev
    32·
    13 hours ago

    There was a cool project that converted hexadecimal numbers (or IPs) to pronouceable words. I think it was also more dense, and of course faster to say / easier to remember.

  • Dumhuvud@programming.devEnglish
    65·
    15 hours ago

    /64

    That’s not an address, that’s a whole fucking subnet consisting of 2^64 different addresses. ☝️🤓

  • kungen@feddit.nu
    301·
    15 hours ago

    Does IPv6 scare you so much that you start craving the monstrosity known as NAT44?

    • slate@sh.itjust.works
      116·
      13 hours ago

      Idk man, NAT makes a lot of sense once you get used to it. And it’s pretty cozy with its firewall features. And somewhat human readable ipv4 addresses are nice.

      • Dumhuvud@programming.devEnglish
        121·
        12 hours ago

        ISPs putting you behind NAT is not cozy.

        They charge extra for a feature called “static IP”. But the IP address not being static is not the issue, for me at least. You could host stuff with a dynamic IP back in 2000s/2010s. But no, now you get to share the same IPv4 address with a bunch of other households, unless you pay extra.

        • slate@sh.itjust.works
          8·
          11 hours ago

          Ha, yeah that sucks and I’d absolutely hate it if I were behind a CGNAT. But I believe most ISPs don’t do that. None of mine ever have. Just like how most ISPs provide you with an ipv6 address range, but not all. Fact is that crappy ISPs can screw up your network no matter what ip spec you’re using.

          And I’ve never heard of a business network being behind an ISP controlled CGNAT. A NAT you control can be nice.

          • 4am@lemmy.zip
            1·
            58 minutes ago

            You don’t need a NAT with IPv6, that’s what link-local addressing is for

      • Laser@feddit.org
        33·
        11 hours ago

        Idk man, NAT makes a lot of sense once you get used to it.

        That’s a lie, NAT is bullshit, sometimes necessary, but it will never “make sense”.

        • slate@sh.itjust.works
          52·
          11 hours ago

          I like that none of my local devices are externally addressable unless an outgoing connection has been established. You can (and should) achieve the same thing with ipv6, but then it’s essentially just maintaining a NAT table without the translation piece. I think that makes sense in both protocols.

          • Eager Eagle@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            6 hours ago

            exactly, I also like this peace of mind for my home network and see no benefit in using ipv6 there. Similarly for any VPC I deploy to an IaaS.

          • Laser@feddit.org
            2·
            10 hours ago

            I like that none of my local devices are externally addressable unless an outgoing connection has been established.

            This can also be achieved using (other) firewall rules.

            but then it’s essentially just maintaining a NAT table without the translation piece.

            So… a firewall?

            NAT isn’t a security feature and shouldn’t be relied on for managing access to hosts.

            It also breaks the assumption of IP that connections between hosts are end-to-end, which requires sophisticated solutions so that everything works (more or less).

            I too employ NAT to make services accessible over IPv4. But only because it doesn’t work otherwise. Not because it “makes sense”. I don’t use it at all for IPv6.