I'm not familiar with IPv6's details, could you elaborate on this? To me, this reads like you're saying that IPv6 solves the problem by having low adoption rates rather than an actual function of the protocol.
The point of IPv6 was to make the addresses so long they are easy to manage.
lol, there is no doubt that had a massive opposite effect. To the point of nearly killing it in terms of willingness to adopt.
Not to mention, at home, most of the ads I do see (PiHole) are IPv6 addresses.
So yeah, having to relearn a bunch of basic network knowledge that worked just fine for decades is a PITA, and I’m 100% positive a design process that focused more on the people that need to configure networks could have yielded a much friendlier, and therefore a much easier to adopt standard.
its really extremely simple, just dont NAT, is that really so hard? just because you dont NAT, doesnt mean you have to let the traffic pass through, that is also an extremely simple concept, no?
There are a shitload of people who maintain networks, like home or small business networks, that aren’t network administrators. Most of those people are not prepared to have their Chinese WiFi cameras, myriad smart appliances, and heck, even home computers easily individually accessible from the internet. It’s an extremely simple concept, no?
It isn't. Routing is good though.
And home routers have firewalls that block inbound connections by default -- including with no-NAT IPv6.
perhaps you could explain how its such a new paradigm and mental model that it simply confuses people? because I dont buy it, its without exaggerating a smaller difference in so far as this goes, than when people get a new microwave oven, and substantially less difference than when people switch phone brands.
Suppose I've got a machine on the LAN and I want to open it up to the world on port 1025 with IPv6.
This can't happen with SLAAC? It has to be a new address? Does the ISP pick the prefix for that address? And one can't centrally-manage that address (because people keep saying that DHCPv6 isn't worth stuffing around with)? What happens when the router fails over to a backup ISP? How does dynamic DNS fit in with all of this?
Those questions don't really exist with IPv4, wherein: One can just set up a static DHCP assignment, forward port 1025, and [optionally] set up dynamic DNS -- and this all happens within the confines of a single home router.
Things would be nicer if NAT66 were used by default for home users though so the question of prefixes would disappear, and it'd perhaps match the "more advanced" home user ipv4 mental model. You'd just use e.g. fd00::2 as your server address.
> The “you don’t have to use NAT anymore” is great theoretically, but it renders a lot of casual network maintainers mental model of network security obsolete without a clear and simple alternative
If your mental model of security relies on NAT then your mental model was wrong, and obsoleting it was the right thing to do.
If v6 made you realize this, then it seems it's more intuitive than v4+NAT was for you.
Split subnets at four bit chunks.
Allocated networks, like to a home or small office, should be /56 or /60.
Then you have to think about link-local addresses and privacy addresses, and how to hand out IPv6 and configure DNS: SLAAC vs. DHCPv6 or some combination.
I have a rough draft of a beginner document but it's not ready. :)
Going smaller than /64 is against best practice and unnecessary. People coming from IPv4 need to understand that trying to be careful with subnet sizing for purposes of preserving space is not a thing in IPv6 below /64. Maybe if a residential user has a /64 from their crappy ISP settings they'd need to do it, but not in a properly configured scenario and certainly not in enterprise.
So I have 1.2 million million million million IPv6 addresses available.
That ought to be enough, eh?
There fixed that for you.
64 bits would be enough to avoid run out, but hierarchical allocation would still be a problem. 128 bits is long enough for many levels of hierarchy. (And yes, you can subnet all the bits, not just the first 64)
It's not about low adoption, it's that there are unimaginably many IPv6 addresses.
...which is a major reason for why it has low adoption
fc00::/7 is for "Unique Local Addresses". Basically, private, non-globally-routable addresses from which you can freely pick space. Kind of like RFC1918. It's deliberately huge and you should only use as much from it as you need. The idea being that if you merge with another organization or connect to them via VPN, it's unlikely your addresses will collide like with RFC 1918.
There's even a website (sites?) to register your ULA space on a volunteer basis to reduce collision chances.
Anyone in IT who allocates 1.1.1.0/24 because 192.168.0.0/24 is hard, should be allocated to trash pickup.