3 ms·
There are plenty of reasons to dislike IPv6 that are much less shallow. Like, it's overcomplicated, not backwards compatible, doesn't actually solve the NAT pro
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
There are plenty of reasons to dislike IPv6 that are much less shallow. Like, it's overcomplicated, not backwards compatible, doesn't actually solve the NAT problems for home users because of how ISPs work in the real world, etc.
- welterde 5y agoThe problem is that IPv4 is not forward-compatible and not that IPv6 is not backward compatible. There are things that map every IPv4 address to a IPv6 address, so from the IPv6-side it is backwards compatible.
- floatboth 5y ago> overcomplicated What exactly is complicated, using hexadecimal in addresses? The IP packet format itself is as simple as ever, and management things are done in a more elegant way (ND runs over ICMP rather than ARP being sort of there on the side not-in-IP-at-all). > not backwards compatible Massive service providers like T-Mobile US who use NAT64 as the only way to connect to v4 hosts anymore would disagree. > doesn't actually solve the NAT problems for home users because of how ISPs work in the real world My ISP delegates me a /56. How else do ISPs work in the "real world"? I've heard of some giving out smaller networks but never something egregiously small.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago> What exactly is complicated, using hexadecimal in addresses? That isn't the complicated part, but thanks for strawmanning that as hard as you possibly could. > My ISP delegates me a /56. How else do ISPs work in the "real world"? I've heard of some giving out smaller networks but never something egregiously small. It's got nothing to do with the size of the address space, it's that they insist on changing it constantly which invalidates firewall rules and any non-dynamic DNS.