Can we now switch to IPv6? Pwetty pwease ☺️
There is now a literal waitlist for IPv4 addresses. And no jumping the line
RIPE approves new policy that shouldn't really exist
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/31/ipv4_address_queue/
@fireglow @terryenglish I use a ULA prefix in addition to the /60 Comcast delegated (via DHCP-PD) so that way my local DNS can point to these addresses rather than (the potentially changing) Comcast prefix: https://pastebin.com/052ZXt1s That address beginning with "fdc5:" is it, it's not routable across the internets sadly but it at least remains the same if Comcast delegates me a new prefix so my local DNS records will still work. Another benefit to IPv6: you can have multiple IPs!
@swaggboi@masto.rootdc.xyz @fireglow@social.firc.de @terryenglish@social.librem.one
Another benefit to IPv6: you can have multiple IPs!
Same with IPv4 they're just scare so you usually only get a /32 but you can get larger subnets.With IPv6 the standard is to assign a /64 for residential which is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPv6 addresses. That's enough to assign every cell in your body 450,000 IPv6 addresses and still have over 1.5 quintrillion IPv6 addresses left over to use for your home network.
@terryenglish@social.librem.one @fireglow@social.firc.de @swaggboi@masto.rootdc.xyz I don't really see how :cute_sup_niggy:
@terryenglish@social.librem.one @fireglow@social.firc.de @swaggboi@masto.rootdc.xyz Yeah, we learned our lesson with IPv4. 64-bit addressing would likely be enough but we weren't gonna take any chances so we went with 128-bit addressing and gave everyone a /64. You get assigned more IPv6 addresses than there are IPv4 addresses in existence.
If you're worried we're throwing them around willy-nilly don't. There are a total of 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 IPv6 address so we won't be running out any time soon.
Just for shits and giggles here's the total number of IPv6 addresses in words:
There are a total of three hundred forty undecillion two hundred eighty-two decillion three hundred sixty-six nonillion nine hundred twenty octillion nine hundred thirty-eight septillion four hundred sixty-three sextillion four hundred sixty-three quintillion three hundred seventy-four quadrillion six hundred seven trillion four hundred thirty-one billion seven hundred sixty-eight million two hundred eleven thousand four hundred fifty-six IPv6 address.
@sjw @terryenglish @fireglow good point also about “not worrying about running out”! You see admins out there saying a /64 for a point to point is somehow a “waste”... We’re so used to thinking of network addresses aa having value like they’re made of gold
@swaggboi@masto.rootdc.xyz @terryenglish@social.librem.one @fireglow@social.firc.de Yep. What really bothers me is when people NAT IPv6. Whoever decided to update NAT to support IPv6 needs to be burned at the stake.
The worst is when sysadmins try to claim it's the only way to setup a network firewall. That's basically an admission that they have no idea what they're doing.
@sjw @terryenglish @fireglow hah! yeah NAT != stateful firewall
@sjw @terryenglish @fireglow @swaggboi
So you're saying the total number of IPv6 addresses will be about the same amount of national debt we will have if the Democrats take control next year?
@sjw @terryenglish @fireglow Whoops, I meant to say "multiple IPs on the same interface" but yes you're right the scarcity of IPv4 addresses would prevent this either way
@swaggboi@masto.rootdc.xyz @terryenglish@social.librem.one @fireglow@social.firc.de Nah, you can sublease a /24 (1 C block or 256 IPv4 addresses) for $60~$100/mo. There's nothing stopping you from assigning all of them to the same interface.
Hell, most dedicated server providers give you a /30 (4 IPv4 addresses) for the single server.
@sjw @terryenglish @fireglow a /30 only contains 2 usable IPs in IPv4: one network address, one broadcast address, then the two remaining IPs are left for the two ends of the point to point link
@swaggboi@masto.rootdc.xyz @terryenglish@social.librem.one @fireglow@social.firc.de Oh yeah, you're right. Looking into it now I was mistaken. They usually give you a /29 with 5 usable.
@sjw @terryenglish @fireglow then there’s this madness... never had to resort to it thankfully https://packetlife.net/blog/2008/jun/18/using-31-bit-subnets-on-point-point-links/
@terryenglish I get a /60 prefix from Comcast and run both IPv4 & 6 on my home network. It bums me out to see so many comments on that article bemoaning lack of backward compatibility when this “dual-stack” approach works well without the added complexity of NATing between the protocols. Since IPv4 “just works” at first glance I think it’s left a lot of people in the dark on how to transition or even why they should bother in the first place