• ryannathans@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not only that, but ipv6 makes networking easier and less complicated. No longer, needing port forwarding or NAT, amongst other improvements

        • Blackmist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s that necessarily a good thing?

          I remember suddenly needing a firewall on my PC back in the days of the Blaster worm.

          Do we really want all those crappy IoT devices open on all ports to the general internet?

        • Plopp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’d be fucked if I had to deal with IPv6 at home. Give me NAT, port forwarding and a dynamic public address that changes.

          • ryannathans@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Slaac does everything for you. You get dynamic public addresses that change (you can disable if you please). Nothing to deal with, just open a firewall port if you want to receive traffic

            • Plopp@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              I want static addresses on my LAN, and addresses I can remember and easily recognize in a list. And I don’t want my devices to have unique addresses outside my LAN, especially not static ones. NAT is great.

              • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                You can statically number a LAN with fd00::/8 and NAT66 to the internet, if you really want to.

                  • Plopp@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    See, what both of you wrote is completely alien and confusing to me. The look of IPv6 gives me an aneurysm. Let me keep my IPv4. You can run IPv6 on your own LAN. I’m not stopping you.

                • Plopp@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  My brain stops me from remembering and recognizing IPv6 addresses. I can’t deal with long strings of hex. And why are people so against me running IPv4 on my own LAN? Do I make you sad? Do I ruin your day? I love IPv4, and NAT works perfectly fine for me. I’m not doing the translation, my router is.

                  • ryannathans@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You don’t need to have long addresses, you should be using hostnames and domains anyway. Ipv6 addresses are often simpler than ipv4 ones. E.g. prefix::1 for your router. Prefix::2 for the next device, and so on to Prefix::FFFF for the first 65k machines if you wish to set it up that way. Ipv4 exclusively on your lan ruins my day because I have to maintain servers and software to support users that only use ipv4 and flat out refuse ipv6 connectivity - it’s expensive and takes a lot of effort to maintain dual stack support.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      No shit.

      But a private Lan will never need it.

      There are 4 billion+ possible IP v4 addresses, nearly 600 million in the current private range.

      Show me a private network with 600 million devices.

      There’s no reason a device that doesn’t have a direct internet connection needs IP6.

      • Nighed@sffa.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Ideally, using just IP6 would be simpler, as every device gets a global address. Then you don’t need to mess with NAT, port forwarding and all that bullshit. Every device having multiple addresses just complicates things.

      • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        A device on your private IPv4 network can send packets directly to 104.21.36.127 via NAT. How will it send packets to 2606:4700:3033::6815:247f? There’s not enough space in the IPv4 header.