Hacker News Reader

Comment by signa11 | Hacker News Reader

in was referring to op’s insinuation (i think) about ipv6 address space being large enough to not warrant usage of nat.

Are you disagreeing that it's large enough?

The only instances of IPv6 NAT I've seen are situations like "I have only a single IPv6 address available but need to run a VM/a Wi-Fi hotspot/...", and arguably that's a completely different matter than "I have full control over my network, but I simply can't request the address space I need because there's none left".

Practically, I've not encountered it myself. I was recently surprised to learn that even when tethering from my iPhone, client devices receive a public IPv6, so apparently mobile networks assign more than an /128 address to even single-line customers.

On fixed-line IPv6, I've also never encountered any less than an /64 network.

/64 is not enough if you need to run two networks (e.g., a guest WiFi in addition to the main one). And yet, here in the Philippines, an IPv6 subnet larger than /64 is an enterprise-only feature that is denied to home users.

You can subnet /64. You'll just lose SLAAC. (+ some idiocy around some devices that refuse to implement both DHCPv6 and manual setting of IPv6 addresses)

This is a similar complaint to "I can't run a server from home because my ISP wont give me a static IP".

Sure, it's a problem, but not one with the protocol.

RIPE-738 (European RIR's address allocation and assignment policy) says that home users should get at least /56.

That's interesting. I've been tethering for years using Android phones, and using a 4G standalone router. I've never seen a client be allocated any IPv6 address in either case. I know the phone gets one for itself, but I don't think the router does. Looking at the phone's IP address status, it is given a non-public IPv4 by the mobile network (so CGNAT if it uses it), and what looks like a single IPv6 by the mobile network.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com