this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
189 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59963 readers
3505 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Amazon finds $1B jackpot in its 100 million+ IPv4 address stockpile | The tech giant has cited ballooning costs associated with IPv4 addresses::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 10 months ago (38 children)

I remember doing an IT course over a decade ago and learning about IPv6 taking over, honestly surprised it hasn't yet. I just looked it up and apparently they came up with it in 1998. How is it taking so long? Is there some technical reason it's harder or something? Does the extra address size mean a not so great trade off in traffic or something?

note: I did study a bit of networking and IT but have forgotten everything mostly and work in a different field, thus my ignorance.

[–] bazsy@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Even tough IPv6 is technically superior to IPv4 for the network operator it doesn't have clear benefits for home users.

Having global addresses instead of NAT means less control over your LAN and these unique public addresses can track users more accurately.

[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

is there any reason why we can't still use NAT with IPv6? it seems like that would solve at least some of the problems.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In principle, no. In practice I looked into it to do a quick job of enabling ipv6 on my router and the software either just doesn't do it, or fights you actively.

Generally speaking ipv6 is a PITA to administer, at least from the POV of someone who's not a professional network admin and can't be arsed to spend a month learning a gazillion new concepts when I can be just fine with ipv4.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 2 points 10 months ago

Because you shouldn't. NAT causes so many issues, nobody sane is implementing NAT for IPv6 as an out of the box option.

[–] bazsy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It is possible, it's just not generally supported be ISP routers. Also there is a possibility of performance issues since IPv4 NAT often relies on hardware acceleration which might not work for NAT6.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 1 points 10 months ago

Having global addresses instead of NAT means less control over your LAN

You can still have internal IP addresses and things like the router firewall work pretty much like they always have. I'm not sure what you mean by less control really.

these unique public addresses can track users more accurately

I feel like that concern is overblown. You get way more information from DNS, for way cheaper, than you get from "there were 27 devices, now there are 28!" and both takes being the ISP and observing the traffic.

It's also not like VPNs can't work in IPv6 land for people that really are conscious of hiding as much information about what they're doing from their ISP as possible.

load more comments (35 replies)