10 ms·

Why? IPv4 works. IPv6 often doesn't. I'd love to see a benefit in ipv6, I see no benefits at all, I can't run an ipv6 only network, so I have to run ipv4, and

by ta1243 1y ago

Why? IPv4 works. IPv6 often doesn't. I'd love to see a benefit in ipv6, I see no benefits at all, I can't run an ipv6 only network, so I have to run ipv4, and everything I need runs on ipv4, why do I need to double my workload to run ipv6 and ipv4. My ipv6 only ssid at home sits idle other than a test vm because when I reach a problem I just move onto my ipv4 only ssid and everything works.

morshu9001 1y ago
Making v6 a separate network from v4 was a mistake in hindsight. They needed to roll this out in steps, first one being you keep the same IP address and all except you're just using v6 instead of v4, with a NAT etc like before (which ofc you could turn off if you want). People only needed more addresses, not everything different.
- ZWoz 1y ago
  You can't fit 128bit number in 32bit field. All suggestions I have seen are missing something or reinventing network address translation, poorly.
  - morshu9001 1y ago
    Expanding the address size did require a larger field but didn't require wiping out the existing addresses or anything else. We got the new packet header and near ubiquitous support for it, but that's not everything.
- ta1243 1y ago
  I made a deliberate choice to see if ipv6 was ready. I don't need ipv6, I do need ipv4. ipv6 doesn't work, ipv4 does. The alternative (dual stack) is more work for no reason. If ipv6 ever works then great. I built a test ipv6 network for work but a lot of equipment simply didn't support it, and of that which did our suppliers said "well it might work but nobody actually uses it so we don't know" It's a solution to a problem which was solved in a more backwards compatible way decades ago. It would be lovely if it worked, but it still doesn't.
bigstrat2003 1y ago
IPv6 works just fine. I'm by no means a talented network engineer (I'm not even a network engineer at all), but it's really easy to set up a network to have dual-stack v4 and v6. While it's technically more work, it's more work on the magnitude of spending two hours rather than one hour on setting up the network. Not exactly a meaningful increase in how much work it took. As for "why", because I don't have to faff about with NAT or port forwarding, both of which are terrible. I just put addresses into a AAAA record and open a firewall rule, the way it should be. Meanwhile with v4 I have to port forward all web traffic to one server, then reverse proxy it to its final destination. It's more complicated and fragile to set up, whereas v6 is simple and pleasant to work with.
- morshu9001 1y ago
  You do have to mess with the port forwarding etc if you're dual stack.
- rcxdude 1y ago
  Ipv4 and ipv6 only work on the Internet because of constant maintenance by many people working in many different organisations. Ipv4, being effectively mandatory, gets most of that attention. Ipv6, being a nice-to-have future- proofing option, gets less. And so you are far more likely to encounter issues, in the general internet, where connectivity is not working properly, and even if you have the energy to debug it, you are likely to find the problem is not on your end and the only option is to fall back to ipv4 and wait for it to be fixed.
- ta1243 1y ago
  > but it's really easy to set up a network to have dual-stack v4 and v6 Why do you need v4? because v6 doesn't work. > NAT or port forwarding, both of which are terrible Why? I assume you're still using a stateful firewall, so what difference does it make. Normal source-nat has many benefits too, for example when you want to send some traffic via ISP1 and some via ISP2, controlled at the network layer, and you aren't BGP peering with them. > Meanwhile with v4 I have to port forward all web traffic to one server, then reverse proxy it to its final destination Or just use two IPv4 addresses. Personally I reverse proxy my servers anyway to have a single (well dual) point of control on entry at an application layer, ipv4 or ipv6 doesn't matter.
IgorPartola 1y ago
You can host stuff on your network that is accessible outside of it without port forwarding. You can have zero configuration address discovery in a way that is simpler than IPv4. You don’t need to worry about what happens when you get to over 200 devices on your local network (not unheard of in at home networks when you start adding IoT devices. You can have stable addresses across ISPs if you bring your own prefix or use a tunnel. You save money by not renting IPv4 addresses. You don’t get as easily blacklisted for email delivery since you dot. Share a /24 with a bunch of spammers. This is before you get into P2P networking without having to rely on a third party relay.
- tripdout 1y ago
  > You can host stuff on your network that is accessible outside of it without port forwarding Why is this an advantage? As in, what's the downside to having to port forward?
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    You can set up p2p connections using a server only to do connection setup/firewall punching instead of relaying all traffic (e.g. for voice/video calling or hosting a game). You can also have more than 1 computer using the same port on a network.
  - IgorPartola 1y ago
    Because port forwarding is done in addition to firewall rules. So it is extra work. And because a lot of devices can’t do UPnP. And because port forwarding at a “large” scale is not good. There are only so many ports.
    - ta1243 1y ago
      > So it is extra work It really isn't, it's the same declaration in your config, and then your automation makes your devices make it happen.
      - 1y ago

by ta1243 1y ago

morshu9001 1y ago

Making v6 a separate network from v4 was a mistake in hindsight. They needed to roll this out in steps, first one being you keep the same IP address and all except you're just using v6 instead of v4, with a NAT etc like before (which ofc you could turn off if you want). People only needed more addresses, not everything different.

ZWoz 1y ago
You can't fit 128bit number in 32bit field. All suggestions I have seen are missing something or reinventing network address translation, poorly.
- morshu9001 1y ago
  Expanding the address size did require a larger field but didn't require wiping out the existing addresses or anything else. We got the new packet header and near ubiquitous support for it, but that's not everything.
ta1243 1y ago
I made a deliberate choice to see if ipv6 was ready. I don't need ipv6, I do need ipv4. ipv6 doesn't work, ipv4 does. The alternative (dual stack) is more work for no reason. If ipv6 ever works then great. I built a test ipv6 network for work but a lot of equipment simply didn't support it, and of that which did our suppliers said "well it might work but nobody actually uses it so we don't know" It's a solution to a problem which was solved in a more backwards compatible way decades ago. It would be lovely if it worked, but it still doesn't.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

IPv6 works just fine. I'm by no means a talented network engineer (I'm not even a network engineer at all), but it's really easy to set up a network to have dual-stack v4 and v6. While it's technically more work, it's more work on the magnitude of spending two hours rather than one hour on setting up the network. Not exactly a meaningful increase in how much work it took. As for "why", because I don't have to faff about with NAT or port forwarding, both of which are terrible. I just put addresses into a AAAA record and open a firewall rule, the way it should be. Meanwhile with v4 I have to port forward all web traffic to one server, then reverse proxy it to its final destination. It's more complicated and fragile to set up, whereas v6 is simple and pleasant to work with.

morshu9001 1y ago
You do have to mess with the port forwarding etc if you're dual stack.
rcxdude 1y ago
Ipv4 and ipv6 only work on the Internet because of constant maintenance by many people working in many different organisations. Ipv4, being effectively mandatory, gets most of that attention. Ipv6, being a nice-to-have future- proofing option, gets less. And so you are far more likely to encounter issues, in the general internet, where connectivity is not working properly, and even if you have the energy to debug it, you are likely to find the problem is not on your end and the only option is to fall back to ipv4 and wait for it to be fixed.
ta1243 1y ago
> but it's really easy to set up a network to have dual-stack v4 and v6 Why do you need v4? because v6 doesn't work. > NAT or port forwarding, both of which are terrible Why? I assume you're still using a stateful firewall, so what difference does it make. Normal source-nat has many benefits too, for example when you want to send some traffic via ISP1 and some via ISP2, controlled at the network layer, and you aren't BGP peering with them. > Meanwhile with v4 I have to port forward all web traffic to one server, then reverse proxy it to its final destination Or just use two IPv4 addresses. Personally I reverse proxy my servers anyway to have a single (well dual) point of control on entry at an application layer, ipv4 or ipv6 doesn't matter.

IgorPartola 1y ago

You can host stuff on your network that is accessible outside of it without port forwarding. You can have zero configuration address discovery in a way that is simpler than IPv4. You don’t need to worry about what happens when you get to over 200 devices on your local network (not unheard of in at home networks when you start adding IoT devices. You can have stable addresses across ISPs if you bring your own prefix or use a tunnel. You save money by not renting IPv4 addresses. You don’t get as easily blacklisted for email delivery since you dot. Share a /24 with a bunch of spammers. This is before you get into P2P networking without having to rely on a third party relay.

tripdout 1y ago
> You can host stuff on your network that is accessible outside of it without port forwarding Why is this an advantage? As in, what's the downside to having to port forward?
- ndriscoll 1y ago
  You can set up p2p connections using a server only to do connection setup/firewall punching instead of relaying all traffic (e.g. for voice/video calling or hosting a game). You can also have more than 1 computer using the same port on a network.
- IgorPartola 1y ago
  Because port forwarding is done in addition to firewall rules. So it is extra work. And because a lot of devices can’t do UPnP. And because port forwarding at a “large” scale is not good. There are only so many ports.
  - ta1243 1y ago
    > So it is extra work It really isn't, it's the same declaration in your config, and then your automation makes your devices make it happen.
    - 1y ago