3 ms·
While I mostly agree, there's definitely the issue of readdressing if your ISP changes your IPv6 prefix. In NATted IPv4, you can maintain your own eternally con
by ipdashc 4y ago
While I mostly agree, there's definitely the issue of readdressing if your ISP changes your IPv6 prefix. In NATted IPv4, you can maintain your own eternally consistent internal address scheme, regardless of what's going on "outside". But in IPv6, if your dynamic IP changes, all your devices get new addresses. I can definitely see the value in creating a stable internal address layout on IPv6, as this article says.
Of course, I have no idea how often an ISP actually changes your IPv6 prefix. In an ideal world, it'd never change...
- staringback 4y agoULAs at least solve this problem for all networking that doesn't have to be internet facing
- anamax 4y agoPeople change ISPs....
- ipdashc 4y agoFor sure, but that's a predictable event that you can plan for and get ready to renumber your network / handle the renumbering. A dynamic IP change can just happen without much warning, and enjoy possibly spending an hour befuddled before you realize what happened.
- unethical_ban 4y agoThe article's main topic is on NPTv6, which would supercede NAT as the tool for maintaining internal addressing.
- ipdashc 4y agoYeah, that's what I'm saying :) I thought the parent comment was saying that NAT was bad and NPTv6 was bad, but maybe I was mistaken.