5 ms·

Agree 100%. There is no excuse other than "v6 addressing and subnetting is haaaard". It makes most things a lot easier than its v4 counterparts. I'd go so far a

Agree 100%. There is no excuse other than "v6 addressing and subnetting is haaaard". It makes most things a lot easier than its v4 counterparts. I'd go so far as to say not deploying v6 is actively negligent.

michaelcampbell 1y ago
> There is no excuse other than "v6 addressing and subnetting is haaaard". This is just absurd on its face. There are very real human, political, engineering, and financial reasons to not want to upgrade things that are IPV4 only. _SHOULD_ one do this, absolutely, but there's a lot more to it than people pulling the "hard" card. There's a bevy of reasons it IS hard, and very few of them are just obstinate luddites.
- theideaofcoffee 1y ago
  When did the post that I was responding to say anything about upgrades? The comment was about greenfield projects. I reiterate my point: if in a -greenfield- project you're not building IPv6 native, you're negligent. Get up on your reading comprehension. If there's no IPv6 support, be an engineer and -make- some: write the software that needs the support, use different vendors that don't break it just because they are actively lazy and can't be bothered to implement RFCs that are, at this point, decades old. IPv4 needs to go away yesterday.
  - michaelcampbell 1y ago
    > Get up on your reading comprehension. The ad hominem, nice.
no-stegosaur 1y ago
Just imagine the world was used to subnets and NAT would be the new thing to learn. Everyone would go "NAT breaks all the time" and "portforwarding is weird" and whatnot. IPv6 is not harder, people just confuse "harder" with "not being used to".
- morshu9001 1y ago
  NAT is actually useful besides just avoiding address exhaustion. Many IPv6 networks are on NAT anyway, like pretty much every cell carrier, which maybe accounts for most ipv6 traffic.
  - toast0 1y ago
    > like pretty much every cell carrier TMo US gives me a whole routed /64. Why build and staff v6 NAT devices for no reason? At least several years ago several cell carriers were all about v6 to reduce the volume of v4 traffic they carry, because v4 requires expensive addresses, expensive nat boxes, and expensive people to feed and care for the NAT boxes.
    - morshu9001 1y ago
      Honestly, I don't know why so many carriers do v6 with NAT, cause intuitively they wouldn't. Maybe someone else knows. I know why a home or office would do it, it's easier to reason about there.
      - Symbiote 1y ago
        Can you give an example of an ISP doing IPv6 NAT?
        morshu9001 1y ago
        AT&T
        Symbiote 1y ago
        I can't see anything in their documentation about that, or anything on forums/Reddit. Users ask about prefix delegation and advanced configurations, but all start from being allocated a /64.
        1y ago

michaelcampbell 1y ago

> There is no excuse other than "v6 addressing and subnetting is haaaard". This is just absurd on its face. There are very real human, political, engineering, and financial reasons to not want to upgrade things that are IPV4 only. _SHOULD_ one do this, absolutely, but there's a lot more to it than people pulling the "hard" card. There's a bevy of reasons it IS hard, and very few of them are just obstinate luddites.

theideaofcoffee 1y ago
When did the post that I was responding to say anything about upgrades? The comment was about greenfield projects. I reiterate my point: if in a -greenfield- project you're not building IPv6 native, you're negligent. Get up on your reading comprehension. If there's no IPv6 support, be an engineer and -make- some: write the software that needs the support, use different vendors that don't break it just because they are actively lazy and can't be bothered to implement RFCs that are, at this point, decades old. IPv4 needs to go away yesterday.
- michaelcampbell 1y ago
  > Get up on your reading comprehension. The ad hominem, nice.

no-stegosaur 1y ago

Just imagine the world was used to subnets and NAT would be the new thing to learn. Everyone would go "NAT breaks all the time" and "portforwarding is weird" and whatnot. IPv6 is not harder, people just confuse "harder" with "not being used to".

morshu9001 1y ago
NAT is actually useful besides just avoiding address exhaustion. Many IPv6 networks are on NAT anyway, like pretty much every cell carrier, which maybe accounts for most ipv6 traffic.
- toast0 1y ago
  > like pretty much every cell carrier TMo US gives me a whole routed /64. Why build and staff v6 NAT devices for no reason? At least several years ago several cell carriers were all about v6 to reduce the volume of v4 traffic they carry, because v4 requires expensive addresses, expensive nat boxes, and expensive people to feed and care for the NAT boxes.
  - morshu9001 1y ago
    Honestly, I don't know why so many carriers do v6 with NAT, cause intuitively they wouldn't. Maybe someone else knows. I know why a home or office would do it, it's easier to reason about there.
    - Symbiote 1y ago
      Can you give an example of an ISP doing IPv6 NAT?
      - morshu9001 1y ago
        AT&T
        Symbiote 1y ago
        I can't see anything in their documentation about that, or anything on forums/Reddit. Users ask about prefix delegation and advanced configurations, but all start from being allocated a /64.
        1y ago