6 ms·

Are there any advantages to IPv6 other than more addresses ?

by shmde 4y ago

rhn_mk1 4y ago
https://www.thousandeyes.com/learning/techtorials/ipv4-vs-ipv6 https://www.thousandeyes.com/learning/techtorials/ipv4-vs-ip... Another, different take: http://www.networkcomputing.com/networking/six-benefits-ipv6 http://www.networkcomputing.com/networking/six-benefits-ipv6
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  The first link mentions no more NAT as an advantage, but I think it's actually one of the big issues holding up adoption. Rightly ot wrongly, since the 00's the perception is that sitting directly on the internet with a public address is a big security no-no.
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    There's an argument to be made that mixing dynamic addresses with the pool of other users of the same ISP is beneficial for privacy. The fact that peer-to-peer applications can finally start working is an unquestionable advantage.
naniwaduni 4y ago
"More addresses" has a handful of knock-on benefits; or, perhaps more accurately, ipv6 would let greenfield systems skip out on some workarounds made necessary by not enough addresses.
cute_boi 4y ago
I just hope ipv6 doesn't have privacy nightmare that 1 device will always get 1 IP. Currently, the isp I use provides dynamic ip, so on every router restart my ip gets changed. If they starts to provide ipv6, I hope they give options to rotate it frequently, so toxic companies like meta, facebook, microsoft can't connect my device & ip.
- wishfish 4y ago
  It's sad how much has changed in the past 10+ years. I remember arguments advocating for ipv6 for exact reason. 1 device per 1 ip. Back then, it was seen as something great. I agree with what you said. It's just interesting how it illustrates how different things are now.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > I remember arguments advocating for ipv6 for exact reason. 1 device per 1 ip. Back then, it was seen as something great. I remember a bunch of people being horrified by the idea of 1 device per IP. I think it's more a matter of who you were around then the group changing their mind, but maybe that happened too.
- trashburger 4y ago
  With IPv6 each device getting a unique IP is not a bug but a feature -- what will probably happen is that your ISP will lend out a /64 range to you, which your devices will use to assign a unique IP to themselves. This completely removes the need for NAT (also, keep in mind that a NAT is not a firewall or a security feature). BTW, dynamic IP rotation was never a guarantee and is only used because the pool of IPs were small. Use a VPN to avoid FAANG.
  - ngetchell 4y ago
    While I understand the sentiment, NAT does so much to protect most users, it should be considered a security feature.
    - pzmarzly 4y ago
      You can still set up inbound firewall on IPv6, my ISP does it (to my annoyance).
    - withinboredom 4y ago
      NAT itself doesn't provide any protection at all. You can set up NAT in dozens of different configurations (1:1 NAT comes to mind), but in the way consumer routers generally set up NAT, I can see why you'd say that (despite there being standard ways to forward ports without any user intervention such as uPnP). There's nothing "secure" about NAT.
rr808 4y ago
I assume for mobile operators there are advantages for location roaming. I'm not sure when you change cells if IP stays the same, but must be a routing nightmare.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  Ooooh, this is actually fun. Your IP does not change, even when switching from LTE, 3G, 4G and 5G. There's an excellent post in the old Sprint forums where a company network engineer explains how it works. I can't find it though, but it's pretty wild.
  - neilalexander 4y ago
    In brief, it is because internet connectivity on most cellular networks goes through single gateways and devices are effectively "tunnelling" to those gateways. As long as the tunnel stays up and the mobile device is still identifiable on the RAN then the IP address assigned from the internet gateway doesn't need to change.
    - withinboredom 4y ago
      What I found especially interesting is how it keeps track of the device, especially when transferring from say a LTE capable station to a station that only supports 3G.
    - rr808 4y ago
      OK so no advantage with IP6?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
miohtama 4y ago
In theory, IPv6 could be slighty faster over IPv4. https://superuser.com/questions/1055584/how-does-ipv6-affect-throughput https://superuser.com/questions/1055584/how-does-ipv6-affect... - Smaller headers - Simpler routing
- mnd999 4y ago
  And no CGNAT which should make a bigger difference. Xbox live supported IPv6 for years because gamers really care about latency.
- vitus 4y ago
  v6 actually has longer headers on average (40B instead of 20B) but is generally more efficient to process because it's a fixed header length. ON the other hand, theoretically IPv4 header length could vary depending on the presence of IP options, so you'd need to compute the offset to continue processing the packet. (I say theoretically because conventional wisdom is that IP options are unreliable in the face of middleboxes, so they're mostly unused. But compliant IPv4 processors have to calculate the header size anyways...)

Are there any advantages to IPv6 other than more addresses ?

by shmde 4y ago

Are there any advantages to IPv6 other than more addresses ?

https://www.thousandeyes.com/learning/techtorials/ipv4-vs-ipv6 https://www.thousandeyes.com/learning/techtorials/ipv4-vs-ip... Another, different take: http://www.networkcomputing.com/networking/six-benefits-ipv6 http://www.networkcomputing.com/networking/six-benefits-ipv6

hotpotamus 4y ago
The first link mentions no more NAT as an advantage, but I think it's actually one of the big issues holding up adoption. Rightly ot wrongly, since the 00's the perception is that sitting directly on the internet with a public address is a big security no-no.
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  There's an argument to be made that mixing dynamic addresses with the pool of other users of the same ISP is beneficial for privacy. The fact that peer-to-peer applications can finally start working is an unquestionable advantage.

naniwaduni 4y ago

"More addresses" has a handful of knock-on benefits; or, perhaps more accurately, ipv6 would let greenfield systems skip out on some workarounds made necessary by not enough addresses.

cute_boi 4y ago

I just hope ipv6 doesn't have privacy nightmare that 1 device will always get 1 IP. Currently, the isp I use provides dynamic ip, so on every router restart my ip gets changed. If they starts to provide ipv6, I hope they give options to rotate it frequently, so toxic companies like meta, facebook, microsoft can't connect my device & ip.

wishfish 4y ago
It's sad how much has changed in the past 10+ years. I remember arguments advocating for ipv6 for exact reason. 1 device per 1 ip. Back then, it was seen as something great. I agree with what you said. It's just interesting how it illustrates how different things are now.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > I remember arguments advocating for ipv6 for exact reason. 1 device per 1 ip. Back then, it was seen as something great. I remember a bunch of people being horrified by the idea of 1 device per IP. I think it's more a matter of who you were around then the group changing their mind, but maybe that happened too.
trashburger 4y ago
With IPv6 each device getting a unique IP is not a bug but a feature -- what will probably happen is that your ISP will lend out a /64 range to you, which your devices will use to assign a unique IP to themselves. This completely removes the need for NAT (also, keep in mind that a NAT is not a firewall or a security feature). BTW, dynamic IP rotation was never a guarantee and is only used because the pool of IPs were small. Use a VPN to avoid FAANG.
- ngetchell 4y ago
  While I understand the sentiment, NAT does so much to protect most users, it should be considered a security feature.
  - pzmarzly 4y ago
    You can still set up inbound firewall on IPv6, my ISP does it (to my annoyance).
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    NAT itself doesn't provide any protection at all. You can set up NAT in dozens of different configurations (1:1 NAT comes to mind), but in the way consumer routers generally set up NAT, I can see why you'd say that (despite there being standard ways to forward ports without any user intervention such as uPnP). There's nothing "secure" about NAT.

rr808 4y ago

I assume for mobile operators there are advantages for location roaming. I'm not sure when you change cells if IP stays the same, but must be a routing nightmare.

withinboredom 4y ago
Ooooh, this is actually fun. Your IP does not change, even when switching from LTE, 3G, 4G and 5G. There's an excellent post in the old Sprint forums where a company network engineer explains how it works. I can't find it though, but it's pretty wild.
- neilalexander 4y ago
  In brief, it is because internet connectivity on most cellular networks goes through single gateways and devices are effectively "tunnelling" to those gateways. As long as the tunnel stays up and the mobile device is still identifiable on the RAN then the IP address assigned from the internet gateway doesn't need to change.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    What I found especially interesting is how it keeps track of the device, especially when transferring from say a LTE capable station to a station that only supports 3G.
  - rr808 4y ago
    OK so no advantage with IP6?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

miohtama 4y ago

In theory, IPv6 could be slighty faster over IPv4. https://superuser.com/questions/1055584/how-does-ipv6-affect-throughput https://superuser.com/questions/1055584/how-does-ipv6-affect... - Smaller headers - Simpler routing

mnd999 4y ago
And no CGNAT which should make a bigger difference. Xbox live supported IPv6 for years because gamers really care about latency.
vitus 4y ago
v6 actually has longer headers on average (40B instead of 20B) but is generally more efficient to process because it's a fixed header length. ON the other hand, theoretically IPv4 header length could vary depending on the presence of IP options, so you'd need to compute the offset to continue processing the packet. (I say theoretically because conventional wisdom is that IP options are unreliable in the face of middleboxes, so they're mostly unused. But compliant IPv4 processors have to calculate the header size anyways...)