4 ms·

Yes, tonnes of benefits. If you've ever been through a merger, you'll know the pain of dealing with getting the everything working when merging networks. That i

Yes, tonnes of benefits. If you've ever been through a merger, you'll know the pain of dealing with getting the everything working when merging networks. That issue doesn't exist with IPv6 to anywhere near the degree because you don't have overlapping RFC1918 space to deal with. IPAM with IPv4 is a massive pain in the backside once you get up to a certain scale, even if you're allocating from 10/8. If you have multiple DCs, you're in for a world of pain. $WORK is having to use internal NATting for some stuff due to us running low on RFC1918 space, but guess what: even that doesn't quite work because there's a lot of software used in DCs that doesn't play at all nice with NAT.

throw0101a 6y ago
> IPAM with IPv4 is a massive pain in the backside once you get up to a certain scale, even if you're allocating from 10/8. Comcast (an US cable ISP) starting deploying IPv6 because they have so many CPE devices that they are out of IPv4 addresses to do management on them. Story from 2010: * https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/01/comcast-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-beginning-ipv6-trial/?comments=1 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/01/comcast-running-... It's also why Apple mandated at some points that iOS apps had to work on IPv6-only networks: it was a requirement from mobile phone companies, as IPv4 addresses are getting scarce, and mobile telcos don't want to shell out cash, so they use IPv6 on phones and do NAT64.
ghshephard 6y ago
Well - you may have overlapping RFC 4193, but if your network engineers have done their job well, you are randomly choosing from a big honking FD/8 address space, and the odds of a collision are statistically very unlikely.
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  FD/8 space? You mean 10.0.0.0/8? No the odds of a collision on 10.0.0.0/8 are high because: - Both corporations probably started allocating from the top - Both corporations probably allocated huge subnets.
  - dbt00 6y ago
    No, FD00::/8. Read RFC 4193. He's talking about the IPv6 solution, not the IPv4 problem.
  - ghshephard 6y ago
    Exactly - the engineers who authored RFC 4193 were super familiar with the problems of RFC 1918 space - and so they were super, super clear on exactly how you needed to allocate space from the FD/8 network. The details are very clear, and the RFC is an awesome read - but the net-net is you can generate a /48 - which means you have 2^16 sub-networks to work with (each subnetwork having effectively unlimited number of hosts allowed on it) - and you can connect with 1,000 other companies that have done the same thing, and there is only a 4.54*10^-07 chance of collision. I know IPv6 network engineers despise RFC 4193 - but, it offers extraordinary flexibility around addressing - particularly if you have large networks that you want full control over. At my last gig, we deployed over 25 million nodes in RFC 4193 space, and it worked like a charm.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- talideon 6y ago
  If only everyone were using IPv6... but we're talking about IPv4 here.

throw0101a 6y ago

> IPAM with IPv4 is a massive pain in the backside once you get up to a certain scale, even if you're allocating from 10/8. Comcast (an US cable ISP) starting deploying IPv6 because they have so many CPE devices that they are out of IPv4 addresses to do management on them. Story from 2010: * https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/01/comcast-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-beginning-ipv6-trial/?comments=1 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/01/comcast-running-... It's also why Apple mandated at some points that iOS apps had to work on IPv6-only networks: it was a requirement from mobile phone companies, as IPv4 addresses are getting scarce, and mobile telcos don't want to shell out cash, so they use IPv6 on phones and do NAT64.

ghshephard 6y ago

Well - you may have overlapping RFC 4193, but if your network engineers have done their job well, you are randomly choosing from a big honking FD/8 address space, and the odds of a collision are statistically very unlikely.

richardwhiuk 6y ago
FD/8 space? You mean 10.0.0.0/8? No the odds of a collision on 10.0.0.0/8 are high because: - Both corporations probably started allocating from the top - Both corporations probably allocated huge subnets.
- dbt00 6y ago
  No, FD00::/8. Read RFC 4193. He's talking about the IPv6 solution, not the IPv4 problem.
- ghshephard 6y ago
  Exactly - the engineers who authored RFC 4193 were super familiar with the problems of RFC 1918 space - and so they were super, super clear on exactly how you needed to allocate space from the FD/8 network. The details are very clear, and the RFC is an awesome read - but the net-net is you can generate a /48 - which means you have 2^16 sub-networks to work with (each subnetwork having effectively unlimited number of hosts allowed on it) - and you can connect with 1,000 other companies that have done the same thing, and there is only a 4.54*10^-07 chance of collision. I know IPv6 network engineers despise RFC 4193 - but, it offers extraordinary flexibility around addressing - particularly if you have large networks that you want full control over. At my last gig, we deployed over 25 million nodes in RFC 4193 space, and it worked like a charm.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
talideon 6y ago
If only everyone were using IPv6... but we're talking about IPv4 here.