Dagger2

11 ms·

121.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Dots weren't an option, because then the syntax would overlap with DNS hostnames. "2001.db8.c.d.e.f.g.ca" is a valid host under the .ca TLD.
122.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Nope, not at all. Everything I said is true. v6 supports deploying in the way described in that article, and you can do it today if you want. If you don't want to deploy v6 like that, consider why -- because the people who live in th
123.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Well, actually it will. In fact, even correctly configured NAT won't stop connections into your network. On top of that, it lulls you into a false sense of security, so you confidently think it's protecting you even when it isn&
124.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
That's just computers in general, isn't it?
125.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
You're looking for one of these: https://ipv6buddy.com/
126.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Okay, so you've figured out how to make v4 addressable from v8. Good job. That lets v8 hosts address a v4 host via a v8 address. How are you going to make v8 addressable from v4? Because you need to do this too for communication to wor
127.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
That's not meaningfully different. It would just amount to a slightly less redundant representation of the same data -- the steps needed to deploy it would be the same, and you'd still have all the same issues of v4 hosts not unde
128.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
The most common is more like /56, which is unfortunate because it means you have to deal with "2001:db8:2d4f:61XX::". It's still easy enough to read the subnet out of :6101:, :6102:, :6103: etc, but it does mean every ad
129.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
But there is a clean migration path to v6: you deploy it. How much cleaner can you get?
130.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Perhaps you could use 41, the value already associated with doing this. (What's up with people constantly suggesting that v6 should do things that it already does?)
131.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Why are you still trying to claim this? v6 has transition methods and ways to interoperate coming out of its wazoo. It does pretty much everything you can do to work with v4. Nobody threw out the idea of transitioning. > but the point th
132.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
But note this only gives you access to v4 addresses, not to v6 ones. You do need v6 internally too.
133.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Just use it. This reaction is coming from a lack of familiarity, not from it actually being hard. Here's some roughly equivalent IP addresses: 203.0.113.45+192.168.1.1 ↔ 2001:db8:2d4f:1::1 203.0.113.45+192.168.1.2 ↔ 2001:db8:
134.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Weirdly, the version field is actually irrelevant. You can't determine the type of a packet by looking at its first byte; you must look at the EtherType header in the Ethernet frame, or whatever equivalent your L2 protocol uses. It&#x2
135.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Why are you casting to sockaddr_in/6? The whole point of that system is that you can just pass around the sockaddr* without even needing to have a definition for sockaddr_in or sockaddr_in6. All of the socket API functions accept socka
136.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
::203.0.113.42 (tunnels to 203.0.113.42 over v4) ::ffff:203.0.113.42 (opens a v4 connection via an AF_INET6 socket) 64:ff9b::203.0.113.42 (translates to v4 at nearest NAT64 point) What are these then? Also, it's not like th
137.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
They do seem to be making progress on that: https://aws.amazon.com/new/?ams%23article-feed%23pattern-dat... They've enabled v6 on an average of something like two services per week for the past year... but they ha
138.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Both of those articles are actually wrong. They say "if an unknown packet arrives from the outside interface, it’s dropped" and "While it is true that stateful ingress IPv4 NAT will reject externally initiated TCP traffic&quo
139.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
v6 mostly is just v4 with more bits, and it has a reasonable migration path from v4 too. I don't think a more reasonable migration path is even possible given the constraints of v4. About the only thing new in v6 that's not alre
140.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
The Internet itself is growing, so "50%" does still represent a growing number of users. Also Google's stats are missing half a billion v6 users from China.
141.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
The point of L3 is to aggregate hosts into networks, so that routing only has to keep track of network prefixes instead of the individual MAC address of every machine. (The amount of routing updates needed for the latter would scale as some
142.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
There's no risk at all if you're using your own allocated prefix, because those are managed by IANA/RIRs/LIRs to not overlap. Incidentally, if you find yourself experiencing an RFC1918 clash, one simple way of fixing it
143.
by Dagger2 6mo ago
Adding two bytes would have been just as much work as adding 12 bytes, and would have left us with too few addresses rather than too many. The MAC address space is now 64 bits and L3 is necessarily less dense than L2, so 128 bits is the sma
144.
by Dagger2 7mo ago
I don't think that RFC is quite correct. Both types are set up the same way (the only difference is whether the dest IP of a packet is 6to4 or native) and it was designed to be unmanaged in the scenario we're imagining here. Windo
145.
by Dagger2 7mo ago
Why do you think sysadmins and end users wouldn't need to deal with v4x? I understand it in the situation where you aren't using the expanded address space, because then you can just present v4 addresses to the sysadmin/user
146.
by Dagger2 7mo ago
So your suggested ordering is for everybody to add support for your v4x addresses in every OS, device, software, API, protocol etc, and then only allow them to make use of the extra address space after everybody else has also added support
147.
by Dagger2 7mo ago
It doesn't rely on anycast. The ISP gives you a v4 address from which you generate the 2002:: prefix, and when talking to another 6to4 network you send the packets directly from your v4 address to their v4 address. Inside those packets
148.
by Dagger2 7mo ago
There is no extension mechanism built into v4 for longer addresses. Of course v4 is going to be with us for a long time. We can't make existing v4-only devices go away because we have no way to enforce a flag day on the Internet, so th
149.
by Dagger2 7mo ago
We did take that path. If you zoom in on the start of https://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html you can see that 6to4+Teredo was more common than native until 2010. (Okay, that's combined wit
150.
by Dagger2 7mo ago
If your goal is just to roll out support for v6 addresses without actually using them, then you don't need to change anything about your network to do that. (Remember going from XP to Vista? That added support for v6 in Windows, but yo

More ›