Dagger2

63 ms·

691.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Like, ~4 bits? It's the last two digits in 2a01:cb14:cce:1200::xx. Compare these two: 2a01:cb14:cce:1200::xx 203.0.113.42+192.168.1.xxx Which is shorter? It's not the pair of v4 addresses.
692.
by Dagger2 7y ago
It's designed to go into DNS, so that computers can handle the remembering. This is the right design for the average human. It's also designed so that the IPs themselves don't need to be particularly hard to remember. Compare
693.
by Dagger2 7y ago
If you have routing to the IP, then it's just a matter of: $ telnet <ip> <port> If you don't have routing, then you'll need to arrange it somehow. With the example addresses you gave, you could do it by bei
694.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Yes: those netblocks belong to them and you can't take their stuff just because you like the look of it. There aren't enough addresses in v4. Reclaiming one or two /8s here or there won't fix that. Before IANA runout in
695.
by Dagger2 7y ago
My experience doesn't match that. ISP DNS servers just return the A or AAAA record that they're asked for, and the return time is more or less identical for the two, not 4x longer. All of the client resolvers I've ever used w
696.
by Dagger2 7y ago
No, of course they're not necessary . They could turn off all their computers and then they wouldn't need any address space at all. But there are benefits to having networked computers, and there are benefits to doing that networ
697.
by Dagger2 7y ago
https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales https://www.vultr.com/products/cloud-compute/#pricing
698.
by Dagger2 7y ago
They are being used -- for the purpose of allowing the internet to scale. But yes, we do need to be careful not to assign blocks that are too large. We're doing a good job of this (see any /8s being assigned?). We're also doi
699.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Then pick a memorable address, something like <prefix>::3 rather than <prefix>:ec47:87af:c904:98d7:de0b. If you refuse to pick a memorable address and refuse to use the tool which is designed to let you handle unmemorable addr
700.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Nope, not again. This is the first time that RIPE has ever had more applications for v4 space than v4 ranges to satisfy those applications with (even with the strict limits on how much people can request).
701.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Not as much as you think. There are only about 20 /8s owned by companies (and those companies are using those /8s for their networks!). Before IANA runout in 2011 we were going through one /8 every month; given that demand ha
702.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Then you're doing something very wrong. You can't rely on NAT to stop connections, because that's not a thing NAT does. You need to be using a firewall. NAT is just an extra, useless, complicated and unnecessary thing to be a
703.
by Dagger2 7y ago
If you don't have v6 connectivity, then by default DNS lookups will be sorted so that v4 addresses are first. I don't know what went wrong in your case, but I don't think it had anything to do with IPv6. `getent hosts` return
704.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Or at least because people incorrectly think it did. v6's L3 model is pretty much the same as v4's.
705.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Since they seem to want to take over the internet, I guess that would be right up their street. Clients can also synthesize the DNS64 records themselves locally, or use 464xlat.
706.
by Dagger2 7y ago
I have a NAT64 translator handling the translation, plus a DNS64 server to point clients to it. You probably don't have those, because it's typically easier to run native v4 instead. I just wanted to make the point that v4-only we
707.
by Dagger2 7y ago
This is much less important. A legacy v4-only server can be reached from v6 via NAT64 (which basically works like NAT but with v6 on the inside), so there's no particular need to get rid of all of them. It's much more important to
708.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Indeed it is, and it works fine. v4-only websites aren't a problem for running v6-only.
709.
by Dagger2 7y ago
$ ip -4 addr show | grep eth0 # nothing $ dig news.ycombinator.com AAAA +short 64:ff9b::d1d8:e6f0 $ wget -6 https://news.ycombinator.com -O /dev/null Resolving news.ycombinator.com (news.ycombinator.com)
710.
by Dagger2 7y ago
When did they cry wolf over this? They've made various announcements at each stage of running out, but this is the first time they've announced that they have more pending LIR applications than blocks to assign to them.
711.
by Dagger2 7y ago
My knowledge of v4's design. The header fields for source and destination address are 32 bits wide, and the pigeonhole principle stops you from fitting more than 32 bits of addresses into those fields.
712.
by Dagger2 7y ago
The choice of IP range for your network is still a conceptually separate thing from the choice of whether or not to NAT outbound connections from said network. Certain choices of IP range might make NAT more or less useful to you, and thus
713.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Based on the GP post, I believe the solar system is a sphere with radius 16.4 km. The volume would, therefore, be almost exactly 2^64 cubic centimeters.
714.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Due to the extreme address shortage in v4, of course it's typical to be putting your internal hosts on a private IP range. But "putting your internal hosts on a private IP range" isn't NAT. And in fact, putting your inte
715.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Yup, I was paying attention to that. Note how adding a leading 0 to 192 made it 0300. And people think this is easier than v6, where adding a 0 to db8 just makes it 0db8...?
716.
by Dagger2 7y ago
Nitpick: it's 25% (or 29% peak) of clients. As for traffic... dual-stacked eye-ball clients see about 50-70% of their traffic go over v6 on average. (What about percentage of overall traffic on the internet? That's much harder to
717.
by Dagger2 7y ago
NAT does nothing of the sort. Here's NAT, as implemented on a Linux machine: `iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wan0 -j MASQUERADE`. You see that "-o wan0" there? That means the rule only applies to outbound connections, and
718.
by Dagger2 7y ago
That's not how v6 works. v6 addresses aren't linked to devices or IDs; typically your devices will generate themselves a random address, and generate a new one every day or so. On the other hand, the extreme shortage of v4 address
719.
by Dagger2 7y ago
It's not that complicated. You can add leading zeros into each field, but that's similar to how 192.168.0.1 can be written as 192.168.000.001 (but if you do that in v4, it turns the field into octal! At least in v6 it's just
720.
by Dagger2 7y ago
This is totally an unfair comparison. Why did you complicate the v6 address? That's 2001:db8::ff00:42:8329, which is a fair bit shorter than the version you wrote. But let's go a step further. If you wanted to remember this addres

More ›