4 ms·

There are still benefits to using unique address space on all networks though. The fact that my fridge doesn't need to talk to your toaster isn't a reason for u

There are still benefits to using unique address space on all networks though. The fact that my fridge doesn't need to talk to your toaster isn't a reason for us to not do v6. If you've never had to deal with clashing RFC1918 blocks when doing a VPN or network merger, consider yourself lucky. It's a giant headache that can never be properly fixed, yet v6 completely avoids it.

guenthert 6y ago
I've only witnessed it on the sidelines (while the internationally distributed company I worked for was acquired). > It's a giant headache that can never be properly fixed, yet v6 completely avoids it. It's a headache, sure. But that it can't be fixed is hyperbole. All it takes is reassignment of IP addresses, there are plenty after all. The headache comes only from IP addresses stored in places they don't belong. If they were only stored in the DHCP and DNS servers, a script could fix this in no time. Part of the problem I witnessed was, that people are hesitant to use DHCP for static IP addresses (servers) and some devices (switches) are incapable of using DHCP. I also observed (much earlier) misguided sysadmins using a scheme encoding location of a device in its name. That of course let to horrible long, unpronounceable names and people remembering and using rather its IP address (that danger of course is greatly reduced with IPv6 ;-}
- Dagger2 6y ago
  You haven't seen the full depths of it then. I originally wrote "a giant headache that never goes away", but changed it because it is possible to renumber the networks. But... that doesn't properly fix the problem. You'll hit the exact same issue the next time you go through a merger. Worse, RFC1918 isn't actually that big. There are plenty of companies out there that have either exhausted it or have to be very very careful with their use of it to avoid running out. At some point you run out of space to renumber into. You're also going to have issues with e.g. VPNs to people's home networks, where renumbering isn't viable.

guenthert 6y ago

I've only witnessed it on the sidelines (while the internationally distributed company I worked for was acquired). > It's a giant headache that can never be properly fixed, yet v6 completely avoids it. It's a headache, sure. But that it can't be fixed is hyperbole. All it takes is reassignment of IP addresses, there are plenty after all. The headache comes only from IP addresses stored in places they don't belong. If they were only stored in the DHCP and DNS servers, a script could fix this in no time. Part of the problem I witnessed was, that people are hesitant to use DHCP for static IP addresses (servers) and some devices (switches) are incapable of using DHCP. I also observed (much earlier) misguided sysadmins using a scheme encoding location of a device in its name. That of course let to horrible long, unpronounceable names and people remembering and using rather its IP address (that danger of course is greatly reduced with IPv6 ;-}

Dagger2 6y ago
You haven't seen the full depths of it then. I originally wrote "a giant headache that never goes away", but changed it because it is possible to renumber the networks. But... that doesn't properly fix the problem. You'll hit the exact same issue the next time you go through a merger. Worse, RFC1918 isn't actually that big. There are plenty of companies out there that have either exhausted it or have to be very very careful with their use of it to avoid running out. At some point you run out of space to renumber into. You're also going to have issues with e.g. VPNs to people's home networks, where renumbering isn't viable.