Asklemmy

43945 readers

597 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

105

People still working in IT, thoughts on IPv6? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by Tekkip20@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Now currently I'm not in the workforce, but in the past from my work experience, apprenticeship and temp roles, I've always seen ipv4 and not ipv6!

Hell, my ISP seems to exclusively use ipv4 (unless behind nats they're using ipv6)

Do you think a lot of people stick with the earlier iteration because they have been so familiar with it for a long time?

When you look at a ipv6, it looks menacing with a long string of letters and numbers compared to the more simpler often.

I am aware the IP bucket has gone dry and they gotta bring in a new IP cow with a even bigger bucket, but what do you think? Do you yourself or your firm use ipv4 or 6?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ipv6 does simplify routing. It has less headers and therefore less overheard. IPv6 addressed the necessity of NAT by adding an obscene amount of possible IPs. Removing the necessity of NAT also simplifies routing as it's less that the router has to do.

Ipv6 as a concept was drafted in the 90s. It didn't start actually being seriously used until ~2006/7ish.

[–] WheelcharArtist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

IPv6 addressed the necessity of NAT by adding an obscene amount of possible IPs

that is correct but doesn't change the fact that nat came afterwards as a workaround und now the ip stack goes back to it's roots without a nat workaround.

It didn’t start actually being seriously used until ~2006/7ish.

true but still nowadays it isn't even slow anymore just refusal

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

that is correct but doesn’t change the fact that nat came afterwards as a workaround und now the ip stack goes back to it’s roots without a nat workaround.

And the end result is a simplification for routing.

true but still nowadays it isn’t even slow anymore just refusal

That's just the pace of large scale adoption of new technology. Look at some of the technologies the banking and financial industry uses as an example (ISO 8583 is a great example). ISP's still support T1 circuits as well.

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There are other benefits of NAT, besides address range. Putting devices behind a NAT is hugely beneficial for privacy and security.

[–] tc4m@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

NAT is not a security feature. Your firewall blocks incoming traffic, not NAT. It introduces new complexity that now needs to be solved.

In corpo environments you have to struggle with NAT traversal for VoIP communication.

In home networks "smart" devices attempt to solve it with shit like uPnP and suddenly you get bigger holes in your network security than before. You could find countless home network printers on shodan because of this. Even though (or maybe because) they were "behind" NAT.

[–] chris@l.roofo.cc 12 points 2 months ago

IPv6 has temporary IPs for privacy reasons. NAT is NOT a firewall. Setting up a real firewall is more secure and gives you more control without things like UPNP and NAT-PMP.