3 ms·
>We need more addresses True. >IPv6 is as good a solution as any... There aren't any other practical solutions. Debatable if it was the best solution but it
by yyyk 2y ago
>We need more addresses
True.
>IPv6 is as good a solution as any...
There aren't any other practical solutions. Debatable if it was the best solution but it is what it is.
>We should get on with it and migrate to IPv6 as soon as possible
Most LANs will run IPv4 forever. IPv6 offers nothing to LANs larger than home labs (when SLAAC is not enough) but smaller than huge companies (when there are more than enough addresses even in IPv4. 240/4 is for every practical purpose private). The community's hostility to NAT/NPT means LAN admins will get it de facto by running another stack internally.
>I want my internal addresses to be stable and if possible, static and memorizable.
Right. But ULAs have ridiculous routing rules. It would take at least a decade for fixes to be deployed everywhere.
>Don't conflate my desire for using NAT at my house for some desire to be behind CGNAT.
Right. But most users don't care.
> A client/server model is inevitable for so many reasons.
Right.
- ninkendo 2y ago> Right. But ULAs have ridiculous routing rules Could you elaborate? I’m able to run ULA-only just fine, with one line in my pf.conf to route 1:1 to my GUA prefix. The NAT is stateless. Maybe you’re referring to the fact that typical OS’s will prefer to use IPv4 over a ULA if both are available? I’ve noticed that, and indeed it’s unfortunate.
- yyyk 2y ago>typical OS’s will prefer to use IPv4 over a ULA if both are available? Yep. There's an RFC for this. I guess it would take a decade to be everywhere. The Global > Local rule is also unfortunate in some configurations*, but that's more of a result of the end-to-end idea and software not realizing a device can have more than one address... * One example from this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43070290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43070290