4 ms·
I like IPv6 it can actually be easier to set up stuff instead of using IPv4 for example OSPF. But I find IPv6 is not as intuitive as IPv4 just looking at an add
by dghughes 8y ago
I like IPv6 it can actually be easier to set up stuff instead of using IPv4 for example OSPF. But I find IPv6 is not as intuitive as IPv4 just looking at an address in IPv4 vs IPv6. You can create new networks for IPv4 pretty easily just by eyeball but not IPv6. At least I can't.
- apple4ever 8y agoIt can be done (using each :XXXX: block as a network instead of splitting it up), but its definitely not quite as easy to eyeball.
- Dagger2 8y agoIt's quite a bit easier to eyeball than v4, because it's much easier to make sure that your network falls on a character boundary (multiple of 4 bits out of 128) than it is to make it fall on an octet boundary (multiple of 8 bits out of 32). If you find v6 harder than it's just down to a lack of practice.
- zamadatix 8y agoIt's pretty easy in v6 if you follow the best practice of making client subnets /64s. Say you were assigned a bog standard /48 then you would have the patternxxxx:xxxx:xxxx:yyyy::z where: x represents your fixed routing prefix y represents your subnet instance (0000-FFFF, 2^16 subnets) :: represents the expansion of "0000:"s z represents the client identifier. For a relatively normal /56 or /60 home user assignment via PD from an ISP you simply lose 2 or 3 "y"s respectively. In both your client netmasks are always /64 and your gateways should always be fixed:subnet::1.
- Dylan16807 8y agoReally? I find it significantly easier. In IPv4 you might get allocated 250.250.16.0/22, and then you have to calculate in your head where exactly that begins and ends, and carefully divvy it up into partitions of different sizes. In IPv6 you get a /56 or /48 and you know that two or four digits are wildcards. No binary math is needed, and all subnets can be the same size of /64