 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
2 edits | Am I? Am I the only one who hates IPv6? A "higher version number" isn't always better. Good luck memorizing the IPs you manage, and much equipment functions poorly under this scheme. |
|
| You may hate it, but there's nothing you can do about that. There are simply not enough IPv4 addresses available.
Not sure why you refer to IPv6 as a scheme... boiled down, it's just a longer address. 32 bits -> 64 bits
--
-thrillhaus |
|
|
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
2 edits | scheme: "a plan, design, or program of action to be followed".
Close enough. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to thrillhaus
said by thrillhaus:You may hate it, but there's nothing you can do about that. There are simply not enough IPv4 addresses available. Not sure why you refer to IPv6 as a scheme... boiled down, it's just a longer address. 32 bits -> 64 bits It is 128 bits not 64 although the 64 bit figure is correct for routing. The 2nd 64 bits is the device number. Right now you get a single 32 bit IPv4 address. With IPv6 you get a single 64 bit IPv6 NETWORK address and the low 64 bits are used to select your devices (like currently occurs with a home LAN Router where you have a local 192.168.x/24 address assigned to up to 253 devices plus the Router). |
|
modifiy
join:2001-04-13
Minneapolis, MN | reply to SLD
I'm with you on that. I've worked with it for a little while now and it's a large change from v4. I wish they would have just added an octet or two. Heck just adding 1 octet gives us 1 trillion addresses. We still have about 40% unused space in ipv4 and that's only 4 billion addresses.
There are also some privacy concerns since your mac address is used in the IPv6 address. It can potentially make it very easy to track your system from across the internet. I believe they have some way of letting that change in some IPv6 compatible OSes (windows vista and 7 do this I believe). |
|
| said by modifiy:I'm with you on that. I've worked with it for a little while now and it's a large change from v4. I wish they would have just added an octet or two. Heck just adding 1 octet gives us 1 trillion addresses. We still have about 40% unused space in ipv4 and that's only 4 billion addresses. The hexadecimal will be an easier transition
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
| reply to SLD
What's so hard about
ping6 -i eth0 fe80::1
Of course the stateless address autoconfiguration will use the MAC address, but you don't have to use that addressing scheme for your LAN. |
|
| reply to SLD
I am really really really dreading the switch to IPv6. It's hard enough to talk some people through pinging IP addresses. Talking them through pinging an IPv6 address will be hell. |
|
| reply to RARPSL
Are you saying I could have a sub-net in my house with routable IP addresses? I hope so! |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to SLD
said by SLD:Am I the only one who hates IPv6? A "higher version number" isn't always better. Good luck memorizing the IPs you manage, and much equipment functions poorly under this scheme. Good luck accessing equipment if we have to use more and more NAT. You know there is a solution to memorizing IPs, it's called DNS. :P |
|
whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| reply to modifiy
said by modifiy:I'm with you on that. I've worked with it for a little while now and it's a large change from v4. I wish they would have just added an octet or two. Heck just adding 1 octet gives us 1 trillion addresses. We still have about 40% unused space in ipv4 and that's only 4 billion addresses. There are also some privacy concerns since your mac address is used in the IPv6 address. It can potentially make it very easy to track your system from across the internet. I believe they have some way of letting that change in some IPv6 compatible OSes (windows vista and 7 do this I believe). Did you listen to Steve Gibson's overview of IPv6? It was a very slanted and poor explanation. For example, Steve said the IPv6 backbone was 6Bone. That was a test network 5 or so years ago and is now dead. IPv6 is running on almost all the provider's backbones. Eg. GBLX, HE, Sprint, Level3 (tunnels), TATA, HE, Comcast (only two customers - DreamHost and Merit).
- 40% of IPv4 space is unused for for machines.
Only a very small percentage of that could actually be reclaimed. There is multicast space, private addressing, etc.
To use multicast space would require the same type of firmware/software upgrades that IPv6 has.
Private addressing can't be publicly routable. So that's another hit to that 40% number.
127.0.0.1 range can't be recovered without multicast like firmware upgrades.
There are some networks that could be tighter on space. Those networks then end up with a lot CIDR blocks and having to do a lot of 'network moves' to expand temporary capacity. Eg. VLANS over a bunch of different wireless zones. Even then you will still have to have extra address space overhead.
As for privacy. Stateless is only one option. Microsoft does have a RFC that hashes the MAC address. A client could also set a static address or use DHCPv6 to assign. Right there that's three other options other than stateless which don't show the MAC address of the computer.
If we stay with IPv4 we'll end up using more and more NAT. NAT blows! |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to AstroBoy
said by AstroBoy:Are you saying I could have a sub-net in my house with routable IP addresses? I hope so! If you want. The /64 is your Internet Gateway address (the same as the /32 you have now) and the rest is the host address (which unless you alter it is based on the device's MAC address). The need for NAT is eliminated by this addressing capability (although there is nothing to say you can not have a Firewall type box between your LAN and the Internet). To see the details, check out the Wikipedia IPv6 article. |
|
| reply to thrillhaus
said by thrillhaus: it's just a longer address. 32 bits -> 64 bits -----
-----
You think 64 bit addresses will provide enough once you start assigning IP's to microscopic items? They thought they would never run out of 32 bit addresses. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to whfsdude
Cute - but DNS isn't always available or the proper solution. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | said by SLD:Cute - but DNS isn't always available or the proper solution. When is neither DNS nor your hosts file the proper solution to the problem of translating hostnames to IP addresses, pray tell?
I think it's fair to say if you're memorizing IPs, you are doing it wrong(tm).
Or as Randy Bush might say, "I encourage my competitors to do this." 
Edited to add: and if your DNS breaks such that you can't resolve the names, you are doing it wrong(tm)
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
1 edit | reply to SLD
i wonder though how will devices see eachother on the local LAN? or will file and print sharing still be point and click. though a concern i have is if we arent with NAT, when the internet does go down will devices on the LAN loose the ability to interact once their DHCP leases run out or a new device unable to work with other devices if the internet is out since it wont get an IP. |
|
| reply to whfsdude
said by whfsdude:127.0.0.1 range can't be recovered without multicast like firmware upgrades. ping ::1 |
|
| reply to Cnote
32 bits = 4,294,967,296 addresses.
64 bits = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses.
Besides that, as said before, ipv6 is 128 bits in all, 64 to specify the network, and 64 to specify the device, so that's up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 networks and up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 devices on each of those networks, for a grand total of up to 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 unique IP addresses. I think that'll last a little while. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to wierdo
Typical - "my situation applies to all". |
|
whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| reply to PapaMidnight
Yup! Even with a ton of addresses v6 was designed not to be overly wasteful compared to v4. |
|
