[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: IPV6-vs-IPV4.jpg (44 KB, 1200x600)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
What are your thoughts of IPv6 on local area networks? It's obvious, that we will need it for the GBI out there, as IPv4 address space becomes too small, but is it really neccessary to configure your LAN for IPv6? What are the benefits?

I always found NAT quite confident, because it seperates networks and can act as a sort of firewall. Would you still do NAT in IPv6?
>>
The cool thing is that with IPv6 you don't need stupid local network memes, you just have one network usually and that's the internet. That alone makes IP4-plebs seethe.
>>
will ipv6 mean the end of dynamic ip addresses?
will mac spoofing allow me to change ip on demand?
>>
>>78825624
>having all your devices exposed to the internet, drastically increasing your attack surface
Nice try, globohomo.
>>
>>78825620
>and can act as a sort of firewall.
NO
>>
>>78825645
Why not
>>
>>78825641
>not understanding what a firewall is
>>
>>78825634
>will ipv6 mean the end of dynamic ip addresses?
READ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
>will mac spoofing allow me to change ip on demand?
READ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
EVERY FUCKING IPV6 THREAD IS FULL OF THESE STUPID QUESTOINS AND MISINFORMATION WHEN YOU COULD JUST FUCKING READ ABOUT IT
WHY
>>78825655
READ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
>>
>>78825624
>you just have one network usually and that's the internet
I don't like having the farts of everyone on this planet in my livingroom.
>>
>>78825620
NAT is not a firewall
>>
>>78825658
it would have been faster if you just said yes or no than to go get that link
>>
>>78825624
>just expose all your IPs to the world breh
>>
>>78825658
Seethe
That's the problem, IPv6 is lacking support still, because
>YOU FUCKING NEED TO RTFM
Normies won't do that. They are glad to even being able to know their LAN IPv4. IPv6 is just horribly designed from an useability point. That's a fact.
>>
>>78825666
As a matter of fact, NAT is part of the firewall. It's impossible to implement NAT without firewall. It's just that NAT isn't a security measure.
>>
>>78825666
Except it is.
>>
>should we just add 3 extra numbers to the current IP scheme?
>nah dawh let's invent this totally different thing that's 10x more difficult to manage and exposes everybody's devices to everyone else
>brilliant
>>
>>78825698
this
>>
>>78825698
haha yeah 3 extra bits that totally fixes all the shortcomings of ipv4
>>
>>78825688
Opinions are not facts retard. There was a point in time that you didn't know how IPv4 worked and was forced to learn it. Now your whole argument is litterally >why do I have to learn new shit
>>78825696
Read >>78825692
>>
>>78825717
READ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_accessibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability
>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Stateless_address_autoconfiguration
lpease just fucking read
>>
>>78825717
>and was forced to learn it
The learning curve of IPv6 is much more steep, that's a fact. Also nothing of this refutes that NAT is a part of firewalling.
>>
>>78825715
what are the shortcoming of ipv4?
ip in general is just your identification number, it shouldn't anything else.
>>
>>78825743
It doesn't matter if it's steep or not for the average user. It will work for them regardless. The only reason you are being told to educate yourself is because you are spewing nonsense in a technical thread. You need to have a basic understanding of something before argue regarding that thing.

>part of firewalling.
Equating firewalling and securing just goes to show you don't even know what firewall even is.
Yes security is one of the end goals for implementing a firewall, but it goes much beyond that. Many more things are implemented inside firewalls, like complex routing algorithms, quality of service and more not because of security but to make things work.
>>
>>78825624
The cool thing is that you have trillion of poorly configured internet of shit devices accessible worldwide because plebs won't fucking bother checking the security of the lamp in their bedroom and if it's used together with other billions of similar badly designed devices to nuke corporate networks off the internet.
>>
>>78825822
>accessible worldwide
firewalls are for segmenting networks
>>
>>78825624
fuck off NSA
>>
>>78825620
LAN as in the same ethernet link? Google "link local ipv6". They are great for finding your devices on a LAN but too bad not everything supports it. And yes, it is "firewalled" since link-locals aren't routable.
Try it and ping ff02::1%the-name-of-your-network-interface
>>
>>78825820
>It doesn't matter if it's steep or not for the average user. It will work for them regardless.
They will mess with the stuff and will not set up their networks properly. Can't you get the fact, that even for the advanced user and professional, with complication comes error-proneness?
People do mistakes. It is a security measure, to limit the possibilities for mistakes.
>>
>>78825836
>firewalls don't need to be set up and the common user will take care when putting stuff on the internet.
>>
>>78825658
>>78825728
This is some hardcore autism.
>>
>>78825765
there's more to IP than just the addressing scheme
>>
>>78825620
>literally comparing bits to bytes to make it sound bigger
>>
>>78825880
so you say. but what are the shortcomings of ipv4?
>>
>>78825857
Anon, 30% of the world is already using ipv6. And I guarantee not even 1% of those 30% even heard of ipv6 in their life
If you think ipv6 is so unsecure, why don't you show me an example of a security breach due to ipv6?
>>
File: 1601978480982.jpg (71 KB, 750x1000)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>78825655
NAT isn't a firewall... NAT is a coping mechanism for the ipv4 address space. A firewall on your LAN is a good firewall. 10.0.0.1 through 10.255.255.255 is more then enough for any local area network.

IPv6 for the WAN & IPv4 for the LAN.
>>
>>78825880
so no arguments, got it
>>
>>78825886
The ipv6 shills are out of control.
>>
>>78825658
There was early talk about burning serialized unique IPv6 addresses to NIC's. But there was problems with switches and layer 2 handling compatibility...

Hell dude they are currently trying to backdoor vulnerabilities into WiFi 6 and WPA3.
>>
>>78825920
http://ftp.cuhk.edu.hk/pub/doc/ipng/html/ipv6-address-privacy.html
im going to go insane
this is frmo 1999
>Hell dude they are currently trying to backdoor vulnerabilities into WiFi 6 and WPA3.
meds now
>>
>>78825658
>>78825634
>will ipv6 mean the end of dynamic ip addresses?
yes
>will mac spoofing allow me to change ip on demand?
no
>>
>>78825895
>If you think ipv6 is so unsecure, why don't you show me an example of a security breach due to ipv6?
>I don't know of any so it doesn't exist
>>
>>78825896
yeah lol that's exactly the point. duh...
>>
i don't even know how to configure ipv6
>>
>>78825959
Well you seem knowledgable, please educate me
>>
What's the actual problem with ipv6 on the LAN?

I would like to think when ipv6 support is wide enough, ipv4 use will be dropped completely and ipv6 will be standard practice for lan.
>>
>>78825983
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862
>>
>ipv6 is insecure because each machine has it's own IP!
do you not have a firewall?
you know your traffic still has to go through your firewall, where the same rules you use for ipv4 apply, right?
>>
I have configured ipv6 for my hosts, but my isp does not give ipv6, so sad.
Does anybody know VPS provider in EU who gives more than /64 ipv6 addresses?
>>
File: 1573015983540.jpg (22 KB, 800x448)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>78825936
Yes I understand that and the same argument can be applied to MAC addresses and ARP layer 2 serial numbers. I'm just saying it's mostly a nothing burger unless you bring the subject to cell providers and how they could use ipv6 unique with imei.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dupont-ipv6-imei-06

Also yes WPA3 did ship with a fresh vulnerability. https://www.zdnet.com/article/dragonblood-vulnerabilities-disclosed-in-wifi-wpa3-standard/
Cut your name calling kikery. When something ships new with a hot fresh vulnerability it's considered a backdoor in my rubric. Fuck off.
>>
>>78826004
Use ipv6 tunnel provided by hurricane electric
>>
>ipv6 is insecure because each machine has it's own IP!
This is most retarded shit I've ever heard.
ISP gives you /64 address space. It's 2^64 addresses only for your usage so your every device will have dedicated ip.
Whole world IPv4 network has 2^32 addresses.
>>
>>78825998
mate i don't even know what is a valid ipv6 address i can give my router
>>
>>78825620
>bits
>bytes
whoever made this should be gassed.
>>
>>78826038
you better get to reading then
>>
>>78826025
Will it able to read my traffic?
>>
>>78826001
>do you not have a firewall?
I have one. I also know a few that don't. They just have their modem router, which too has a firewall inside, but they don't even know about that.
>>
>>78826048
fuck it i'll just use ipv4 another decade
>>
>>78826035
the problem most have is the erasing of the border between WAN and LAN mostly brought front and center with the rise cell service providers being defacto internet providers.
>>
>>78826052
Obviously. Same as your isp
>>
>>78825620
Tbh have not really gotten into IPv6, I know, I am ashamed. The only thing I know is that :: is so you do not have to be redundant with zeroes, ::1 act the same as 127.0.0.1 (localhost), and that is about it..
>>
>>78826062
>I also know a few that don't. They just have their modem router, which too has a firewall inside, but they don't even know about that.
anon.

Just because they don't know they have a firewall doesn't mean they do not have one.
>>
>>78826021
Also they would use the opportunity to sell security measurements for extra money. So you can get quite cheap a connection, but you'll need to implement all the security yourself. Or you pay for it. So if some pleb just wants cheap internet and doesn't know what they are doing, well tough luck.
>>
The reason we're stuck on IPv4 is that brain damage like NAT is fine for consooming. It separates the internet into consoomers and providers (i.e enterprises).

Can't have regular people hosting their own websites and exchanging information. Everything has to come from centralized globohomo youtube/google/facebook. The jew fears P2P and by extension fears end to end connectivity that IPv6 helps reestablish.
>>
>>78825994
Dude, to see security issues you don't need to bring real world examples of security issues that already caused trouble, you just need to show that there's possibility. And that comes just with being more error-prone due to increased complexity.
>>
You do know your modem handles NAT... not your LAN router unless your modem is your router serving you entire lan via layer 2.
>>
>>78826078
>Just because they don't know they have a firewall doesn't mean they do not have one.
It works for them well enough because they are behind a NAT.
>>
>>78826118
How can you show there's a possibility of real world security issues without being able to describe an example of one?

What's an example how how a ipv6 related error would create a security issue?
>>
>>78826106
>The reason we're stuck on IPv4 is that brain damage like NAT is fine for consooming.
Yes it's stupid and born from shortcomings of a limited address space. But it's a fact, that it implements network separation by default.
If they made IPv6 more accessible, it would have gone through much more likely. But IPv6 started with "WOW so many addresses we can like put EVERY GRAIN OF SAND directly to the internet and can address everything predictable and globally!" until some came and showed, how's that maybe a bad idea.
>>
>>78826146
>What's an example how how a ipv6 related error would create a security issue?
If you exposed your shit chinese device, or your self designed Arduino window switch directly to the internet for instance...
>>
>>78826169
how is that a bad idea
>>
>>78826177
see >>78826175
>>
>>78826185
How nat protects your chink device?
>>
>>78826169
you seem to be suggesting every device having a unique address somehow makes firewalls impossible
you can still firewall your shit
>>
>>78826169
>how's that maybe a bad idea.
How is it a bad idea?
I feel like this board is full of 14 year olds who forget when every normal internet connection has its own IP, and everything worked way fucking better before we had to deal with ISP level NAT. I'm even dealing with shit from this issue at my office at the moment.
>>
>>78826118
But it's not more error prone. You don't want to accept that ipv6 is no more insecure than ipv4 but also refuse to provide a real world example where ipv6 is less secure than ipv4.

I will give you an example how ipv4 is infact less secure than ipv6. You can take your own ip address, lets say 5.5.5.5, you add 1, you reach 5.5.5.6, test if the host is up by pinging it or whatever. If it's up then you start port scanning for possible vulnerabilities or some login screen that you can bruteforce

With ipv6, you can't do that. Because even if you guess the prefix right, let's say 2600:1:2:3:4:5:6:7::/64, you can't possibly bruteforce a valid address in the remainder of the 64 bit address space. So you can't even find a host that you can scan for open ports. How is this less secure than ipv4? It provides way better security by obscurity than ipv4 will ever peovide
>>
>>78826106
>"IPv4 is that brain damage like NAT is"
I have networking certs... and the problem isn't NAT... the problem is LAN isolation from WAN access. For security reasons this is a major concern. Since data centers switched to "spine and leaf" networks from "tiered" networks, ipv6 private area networks are sorta being nested into leaf clusters of address spaces. NAT was better suited for the more traditional big daddy routers.
>>
>>78826197
If it's not exposed to the internet
>>
>>78826175
You mean in a way where it wouldn't have been exposed via an ipv4 NAT anyways and you also didn't configure any kind of firewall?

If i have a heap of shit chink device on my ipv4 network it would be just as likely to UPnP configure port forwarding, and still fuck me. In either case my router needs to be correctly configured.
>>
>>78826206
>How is it a bad idea?
That's not obvious to you?
>>
>>78826228
You know that you can send packet that will be routed directly to your chink device at 192.168.0.117?
>>
>>78826228
only if router is correctly configured and UPnP is disabled. Which it often is not in my experience.
>>
>>78826241
>You mean in a way where it wouldn't have been exposed via an ipv4 NAT anyways
No they would not. If I just want to control my light from my LAN
>>
>>78826242
Obviously not retard. I don't ask questions where the answer is obvious for me. I don't relate to people who go around doing this.
>>
>>78826219
>>78826255
You guys know ipv6 can do local addressing. Right?
>>
>>78825864
a simple one that drops incoming traffic really doesn't need to be set up, my current shitty and ancient cisco cable modem/router combo ships with it enabled for IPv6 hosts out of the box.
>>
>>78826244
You can not send that from the internet, it will not be routed by the ISP.
>>
>>78826214
Arguing that security through obscurity is stronger security is equivalent as saying a simple algorithm like a Caesar Cypher or a simple rotate by function as sufficiently "secure".
>>
>>78826255
Then you better make sure your router is configured properly so it's not exposed, for ipv4 and ipv6.
>>
>>78826257
>I don't relate to people who go around doing this.
cool- so?
>>
>>78826263
It will be
>>
>>78826261
obviously... but what I'm saying is it isn't as good as
>>
>>78826268
>Then you better make sure your router is configured properly so it's not exposed, for ipv4 and ipv6.
That I should do is not the fucking point. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's about what the normies will do who don't know shit about any of that and just plug stuff into their networks.
>>
>>78826266
Nigger your whole point of your arguing NAT is security by obscurity. I know you are stupid but jesus christ anon
>>
>>78826274
192.168.0.0/16 will not be routed by your ISP
>>
>>78826280
How so? What can ipv4 do that ipv6 can't in regards to local addressing? I'll tell you what ipv6 can do that ipv4 can't. Automatic zero conf stateless link local addressing
>>
>>78826282
see >>78826262
>>
>>78826261
FFS I no where said, that IPv6 is insecure by design and can not be secured. I said, that IPv6 needs more effort to secure it (admittely you can secure it with better performance than IPv6 if you know how but that wasn't the fucking point here).
>>
>>78826282
My point is normies are effected on both ipv4 and ipv6.

I would argue ipv6 is less prone to normie misconfiguration because it's not build around weird hacks like LAN NAT wrapped in ISP level NAT, with shit like UPnP to give open internet access to anything that asks. All that is needed is a firewall.
>>
>>78826308
I don't understand autists and why simple clear facts are not accessible to them.
>>
>>78826314
>than IPv6
>than IPv4
>>
>>78826295
You send special packet to your routers public ip and router will route that packet to your chink device at 192.168.0.117
That's what for nat is made.
>>
>>78826318
If you just have a plain old LAN NAT and all your local stuff is 192.160.0.0/16, you are by default not exposed to the internet, unless you log into your router and expose the exact host.
>>
>>78826314
secure ipv6
>configure firewall
it's secure

secure ipv4
>configure firewall
>ensure UPnP not on
>ensure port forwarding is not configured in correctly
>make sure any applications that need public internet exposure are carefully configured, possibly requiring messing with all 3 of the above settings.

There is a reason ipv6 was designed the way it was. People are blinded to the security issues created my the complexities of the clusterfuck ipv4 networking has created. That's okay, because smart people created ipv6 for you and now you just need to use it.
>>
>>78826314
What effort?
If you use link local addresses for devices that don't require internet access then they won't be exposed to the internet at all and require zero effort. If you want to give them internet access then just use a global ip address with a single blanket firewall rule that blocks incoming connections
>>
>>78826343
>special packet to your routers public ip
What "special packet"?
>>
>>78826291
>projecting
I have my ccna and comptia certs kiddo. Private ipv6 assignment is virtually pointless when private ipv4 assignment does the exact same fucking thing. LAN's and most corporate lan's wont have a justifiable reason to even worry about ipv6 private lan configuration and farewall rules. Are you this fucking dense?

Only in the data centers are we finding a need to start using ipv6 lan's for our leaf and spine network frameworks specifically to address internal communication.

Another big reason IPv6 was slow was the different layer 3 routing schemes being late to the party.
>>
you can still make your own network and use NAT. it doesn't matter what IP version you use.
>>
IMO ipv6 is another underestimate from humans, we'll use that shit up regardless of the 1000 ips per square meter of milky way galaxy meme
>>
>>78826381
the only difference is that ISP gives you a subnet address with ipv6 and router's DHCP will assign ip addresses from that subnet.
>>
>>78826359
I don't know what routers you have in your area but if I buy a plastic router here, you can't do anything from the outside to it.
>>
>>78826385
>each atom in the universe is individually addressable
welcome to the future anon
>>
>>78826379
>I have my ccna and comptia certs kiddo
Oh so that's why you don't like IPv6? because you don't want your useless certs that you wasted money on become obsolete?
You should've told that from the beginning
>>
>>78826359
wrong >>78826379
>>
>>78826397
if UPnP is off.
>>
>>78826381
no you don't your modem does that
>>
>>78826365
"Autonomous NAT Traversal" whitepaper if you want more
>>
>>78826385
What a secure network needs by default is:
>Device addresses shall not be predictable, you shall need to look up a device to find out it's address
>Network segments shall be separated from everyone else, it should take extra effort to expose hosts where it's needed
>Changing device addresses should be simple and easy and automatically, unless you manually configure a device to have a fixed address
>Routing from the outside to the inside shouldn't be possible by default, should need extra configuration
>If you forgot to configure a host, it shouldn't be accessible
>>
File: 1586317617106.jpg (63 KB, 1280x720)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>78826407
you are helpless
>>
>>78826405
that'd, be enough, until we found how to mine other universes
>>
>>78826412
This isn't even responding to anything I said.
>>
>>78826438
Don't worry anon. I'm sure there will be special offer programs for old cert holders to update their certificates to IPv6 ones
>>
>>78826436
why are you responding to me there? Wrong person?
Also ipv6 does have most of that, and all if you enable a firewall. Ipv6 addresses should constantly change too unless you set static
>>
>>78825641
>set your router to block anything that goes into your subnet
your argument no longer exists
>>
>>78826379
What is the benefit of using ipv4 for lan and ipv6 for open internet when you can just use ipv6 for everything?

Is it possible to do port forwarding with ipv6?
>>
>>78826441
"most corporate lan's wont have a justifiable reason to even worry about ipv6 private lan configuration and firewall rules."
It's a fact. I know firsthand.
>>
>>78826472
Yeah, which again does not address anything I said.
>>
>>78825743
How do you even learn ipv6? It's just like ipv4 but with more digits, isn't it?
>>
>>78826516
Why does every ipv6 thread end up having this picture posted in it?
>>
>>78826528
it's not just ipv6 threads i've seen it a couple of other times
>>
>>78826528
this is how ipv4 looks like from the ipv6 POV
>>
>>78826469
this >>78826472

It's often an unjustifiable effort at the end of the day trying to explain the "project" to translating rules and automation deployment scripts across the entire infrastructure unless required.

God bless Cisco and their upcoming tools to do away with all the current networking madness and just fully deploy hardware networks like Amazon does with AWS.

It's clear very few of you know what I'm actually talking about in the corporate field and the problems with multiple vendors, lock-in, scripting woes, and justifying expenses.

SD-WAN and SDN are the future. Software Defined Networking (SDN) is the AWS of networks.
>>
>>78826556
cia shill
>>
>>78826650
So the argument is that corporations won't adopt LAN ipv6 because it's too much work? That I completely accept. Is it a bad idea besides that though? Corporations are slow as hell adopting any kind of new tech unless it's absolutely a clear benefit to the companies short term profitability.
>>
>>78825656
>Completely missing the point
>>
>>78826496
you said the transition to ipv6 on the lan is just that simple... it isn't >>78826650
>>
>>78826699
no I didn't.
>>
>>78826680
Not only that but it doesn't actually provide any benefit at all. What we need is better tooling and less vendor lock-in. Not more ip assignment at the benefit of a slightly less complex global layer 3 routers.

It doesn't matter really since we have the automation. Software Defined Networks and AI controlled routing is the cutting edge.
>>
>>78826680
Big corps also own a lot of IPv4 address space which is a valuable asset, a /24 net costs around 5000 dollars nowadays to buy. By advancing IPv6 they would essentially be depreciating their own assets.
>>
>>78826710
>"People are blinded to the security issues created my the complexities of the clusterfuck ipv4 networking has created. That's okay, because smart people created ipv6 for you and now you just need to use it"
It's just flat out wrong and many levels.
>>
>>78826781
Big corps already implemented ipv6 though
>>
>>78826796
>It's just flat out wrong *on* many levels.
>>
>>78826781
ipv4 address are on track to rapidly depreciate. So if they can't sell them and get on ipv6 they lose the value of them.

>>78826796
name one.
>>
>>78826804
sorry but that's wrong
>>
>>78826770
>Software Defined Networks and AI controlled routing is the cutting edge.
That does sound pretty based.
>>
>>78826819
Name some big corps that aren't dual stack then
>>
>>78825820
>>It doesn't matter if it's steep or not for the average user. It will work for them regardless.
no, it will work in an insecure way, at best
>>
>>78826035
>ISP gives you /64 address space. It's 2^64 addresses only for your usage so your every device will have dedicated ip.
irrelevant, people will suffer ddos and if they got banned, they cant escape it because ip will not be dynamic
>>
>>78826912
Beats getting banned because someone on your ISP shared IP gets banned.
>>
>>78826875
No. >>78826214
IPv6 addressing is obscure enough that you don't have to worry about your network being bruteforced. it's impossible to guess the ip address of a device without snooping their whole network communications. and if you can snoop their data, you can mitm them to highjack a NAT'd ipv4 connection so NAT won't give you any security in this situation
>>
>>78826939
hijack*
>>
>>78826834
>>78826804
>>78826818
All I can legally say is government agencies and/or multiple media organizations. The largest problem being cost of deployment, rewriting internal manuals, teaching balding boomers, and dealing with upper management whore women that keep cutting our budget... We have systems from the fucking 90's still running here... It costs money to implement a suitable replacement and explaining the cost. We pretty much got the approval to slowly start moving infrastructure to AWS and Azure cloud. Our local internal systems are being rebuilt to efficiently run off a few distributed systems always syncing to the cloud.

Most of these companies have razor thin margins and are barely profitable only thanks to local corruption and tax breaks.
>>
>>78826928
allowing unique identification into networks. IPv4 scrubs layer 2 ipv6 encodes mac onto layer 3 address
>>
>>78826960
>government agencies
not big corp
>multiple media organizations.
like what?
>>
>>78826960
My point was ipv4 has created a clusterfuck for networking. Your defence is fixing it would be too much work.
>>
>>78826975
hm?
>>
>>78827003
Have you ever worked in a large tier 1 network conglomerate, like Verizon or Centurylink or Telia?
They are absolute clusterfucks.
>>
>>78825658
1000% agree. Read the wiki, you dumb, computer-illiterate fucks!
>>
Do IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses work out of the box?
>::ffff:IPv4
>>
>>78827016
I fully accept that. But my impression is it is the clusterfuck companies at fault and not so much ipv6.
>>
>>78827032
Yes but it's just a compatibility standard for the operating system and software. you would still be using ipv4
>>
>>78825620
For us memorylets, IPV6 is the end of being able to easily memorize IP addresses. You'll pretty much have to use dyndns now, even if you have a static or rarely changing dynamic ip.
>>
>>78827038
You would be correct, IPv6 is viable and proven working in itself but the technical differences over IPv4 and the companies being so spread out cause a lot of work, and when their customers are also huge conglomerates with similar conglomerate clusterfuck problems the changes propagating will take years, decades.
>>
>>78826975
Mac encoding is optional
>>
>>78827091
It's not even that. it's discouraged. It's like implementing payment processing over http. you can do it if you want but it's fucking retarded without using https, which is privacy extensions in case of ipv6 slaac
>>
>>78827038
ipv6 has little to do with it. there is still relatively new equipment not working with DHCPv6... ipv4 configuration isn't the problem
>>
>>78826976
No office organization is using ipv6 on their local area network.
>>
>>78826912
non-shit ISPs allow you to request a variable size prefix. I get a 56 from comcast. Good luck ip banning when you can't tell what the prefix size is.
>>
>>78827060
IPv6 Abbreviation https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/816-4554/ipv6-overview-24/index.html
>>
I just want everything to be IPv6 to ease my autism and OCD.
>>
>>78827201
If printers didn’t exist we would have 100% ipv6 usage by now
>>
IPv6 is advised against if your subnet is under /64
>>
>>78827201
wont happen because it isn't needed
>>
>>78827225
very few things are ever truly *needed*. No one will want to continue under the complexity of IPV4-IPV6 interop forever.
>>
>>78827216
My shitty hp m12w supports ipv6
>>
>>78827273
Yeah but those ancient 20 year old laser printers don’t
>>
>>78827195
Does that honestly help you?

2001:db8:3c4d:15::1a2f:1a2b


I'm not gonna memorize that shit in 10 seconds. It's going to take me longer to just read that IP than it would take me to memorize an IPv4 address which I could recall with confidence the next day. And that example one even has two obvious mnemonic patterns. I'm impressed if you can easily memorize a 20 symbol hex code with any sort of confidence in less than 2 minutes time. I certainly can't.
>>
>>78827293
ipv6 is more than 20 years old at this point, so maybe they do
>>
>>78827359
not him, but you shouldn't really need to remember IP addresses anyway, use DNS
>>
>>78825667
it would have wasted less energy and did not kill a thread if op had read wikipedia article before making this stupid thread full of FUD
>>
>>78825624
nigger, this is not even possible, what you talking about?
>>
>>78827193
>he thinks the prefix is not the same all the time
>he thinks admins cant range ban

go back
>>
>>78825765
>>78825995
https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810
>>
>>78827862
get a new prefix by requesting a different prefix size. What range would you ban?
>>
>>78827710
You shouldn't have to memorize phone numbers either since there are phone books, but people have been doing so for the last 80 years nonetheless.
>>
>>78828981
rather poor example as while i do remember when people remembered their friends' phone numbers, including myself, nowadays people use the address books / contact list on their cell phones
when was the last time you saw someone call someone they knew on their phone by typing in their number?
>>
>>78825889
>>78825897
https://www.ipv4.deals/blog/explain-the-limitations-of-ipv4-that-are-overcome-by-ipv6/
>>
>>78829081
It just says address space. Everything else is extremely vague and it doesn't go into detail about it.
>>
>>78829209
having your devices be able to individually self-assign an address without worrying about collisions is huge
>>
>>78825665
So use a firewall that blocks ingress. NAT was never what kept you safe.
>>
>>78825896
>IPv6 for the WAN & IPv4 for the LAN

Based



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.