4 ms·

Isn’t it a lot cheaper to pay for a static ipv6 address?

hypothesis 4y ago
Why would you pay for a static IPv6 address? It’s harder to memorize and if you’re using dynamic dns, then not much point in a static IP, is there?
- nybble41 4y ago
  The point of having a static IPv6 address would be that you can use regular DNS, not dynamic DNS. With dynamic DNS you have to use a short TTL, increasing the load on the DNS server, and even then it will break occasionally due to caching when the IP address changes. Ease of memorization is a non-issue since you should be using DNS anyway, whether for IPv4 or IPv6.
- bush-bby 4y ago
  Well, I would say it depends on the use case? Maybe for accessing a couple services I would be okay w dynamic dns, but if I’m trying to host something where I’d prefer less points of failure and prioritize stability and uptime I probably would rather have a static address. (Please correct me if I’m wrong)
- 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
  A lot of people/companies still rely on IP filtering
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Static IPv6 isn't that much harder to memorize. Admittedly I'm often numerically dyslexic, but I even sometimes have a harder time with memorizing IPv4 addresses than IPv6. Particularly with the big trick that you can elide all the zeroes you want with double colon (::). At that point you just have to remember your subnet prefix and then all of your statically addressed devices you can think of as just {subnet}::N. Your web server can be thought of only as "::1" to you and your database server as "::2" and your combination printer and coffee maker can be "::3" to you, and you just have to remember to include your prefix up front (or copy and paste that part). Even a paltry /64 is just 16 hex numbers to memorize in nice 4 groups of 4 in the worst case that your ISP can't give you a bunch of trailing zeroes in your /64 request. (A /56 which is what most ISPs should give you per convention if you request a static subnet is 14 hex numbers in 3 and a half groups of 4.)
- magicalhippo 4y ago
  The IPv6 prefix I get from my ISP is almost entirely "full", so the :: is only good for the latter 64 bits. I can imagine someone paying to get more zero bits in the prefix, or a more memorable prefix. For me I've just resigned to the fact that each of my IPv6 servers will require DynDNS.
mort96 4y ago
What exactly can you do with a static IPv6 address without a static IPv4 address? Most networks don't support v6 yet, so if you wanna host anything you need v4.
- bush-bby 4y ago
  It was my understanding that had changed at this point. That most networks have the support but still prioritize v4. Is that incorrect?
  - Hallucinaut 4y ago
    I believe Windows with Hyper-V (used for WSL 2) actually prioritizes ipv6 over ipv4 even. Not well, mind you, but that's a different story.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    I use one of the largest ISPs in the US and it does not support IPv6.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    I live in New York and neither have IPv6 at work nor at home.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    Most consumer devices today use some variant of the "Happy Eyeballs" protocol that prioritizes v6 to one extent or another, but "races" them (if IPv4 is faster to ping for a given DNS host it switches to IPv4 for that DNS host; otherwise it prefers IPv6). Things like NAT and CGNAT naturally slow down IPv4 so many consumer networks very heavily prioritize v6 in the "Happy Eyeballs" races.
  - mort96 4y ago
    The only time I ever have working IPv6 is when I'm using the cell network. No place I've worked, and no place I've lived, has had working IPv6. I'm in Oslo, Norway, so not exactly a technological backwater either.

Why would you pay for a static IPv6 address? It’s harder to memorize and if you’re using dynamic dns, then not much point in a static IP, is there?

nybble41 4y ago
The point of having a static IPv6 address would be that you can use regular DNS, not dynamic DNS. With dynamic DNS you have to use a short TTL, increasing the load on the DNS server, and even then it will break occasionally due to caching when the IP address changes. Ease of memorization is a non-issue since you should be using DNS anyway, whether for IPv4 or IPv6.
bush-bby 4y ago
Well, I would say it depends on the use case? Maybe for accessing a couple services I would be okay w dynamic dns, but if I’m trying to host something where I’d prefer less points of failure and prioritize stability and uptime I probably would rather have a static address. (Please correct me if I’m wrong)
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
A lot of people/companies still rely on IP filtering
WorldMaker 4y ago
Static IPv6 isn't that much harder to memorize. Admittedly I'm often numerically dyslexic, but I even sometimes have a harder time with memorizing IPv4 addresses than IPv6. Particularly with the big trick that you can elide all the zeroes you want with double colon (::). At that point you just have to remember your subnet prefix and then all of your statically addressed devices you can think of as just {subnet}::N. Your web server can be thought of only as "::1" to you and your database server as "::2" and your combination printer and coffee maker can be "::3" to you, and you just have to remember to include your prefix up front (or copy and paste that part). Even a paltry /64 is just 16 hex numbers to memorize in nice 4 groups of 4 in the worst case that your ISP can't give you a bunch of trailing zeroes in your /64 request. (A /56 which is what most ISPs should give you per convention if you request a static subnet is 14 hex numbers in 3 and a half groups of 4.)
magicalhippo 4y ago
The IPv6 prefix I get from my ISP is almost entirely "full", so the :: is only good for the latter 64 bits. I can imagine someone paying to get more zero bits in the prefix, or a more memorable prefix. For me I've just resigned to the fact that each of my IPv6 servers will require DynDNS.

mort96 4y ago

What exactly can you do with a static IPv6 address without a static IPv4 address? Most networks don't support v6 yet, so if you wanna host anything you need v4.

bush-bby 4y ago
It was my understanding that had changed at this point. That most networks have the support but still prioritize v4. Is that incorrect?
- Hallucinaut 4y ago
  I believe Windows with Hyper-V (used for WSL 2) actually prioritizes ipv6 over ipv4 even. Not well, mind you, but that's a different story.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  I use one of the largest ISPs in the US and it does not support IPv6.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  I live in New York and neither have IPv6 at work nor at home.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Most consumer devices today use some variant of the "Happy Eyeballs" protocol that prioritizes v6 to one extent or another, but "races" them (if IPv4 is faster to ping for a given DNS host it switches to IPv4 for that DNS host; otherwise it prefers IPv6). Things like NAT and CGNAT naturally slow down IPv4 so many consumer networks very heavily prioritize v6 in the "Happy Eyeballs" races.
- mort96 4y ago
  The only time I ever have working IPv6 is when I'm using the cell network. No place I've worked, and no place I've lived, has had working IPv6. I'm in Oslo, Norway, so not exactly a technological backwater either.