452
Have you been exposed to an IPv6 address at work? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 80 points 1 year ago (4 children)

/64

That's not an address, that's a whole fucking subnet consisting of 2^64 different addresses. ☝️🤓

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • [+] 39 points 1 year ago (12 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Just make your IP addresses pronouncable words like feed:deaf:babe:beef:cafe:: problem solved ez (working 2023!)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    But you're limited to a-f. I wonder if anyone's figured out how many addresses are actually possible with that system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I think that's just 6^32, no? (Amount of options^string length). Which is 7958661109E24.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, calculation of the amount of possible strings containing only a-f is trivial. But the idea is for addresses to be memorable. So I'm wondering how many strings which are valid IPv6 addresses are possible if you are limited to actual English (or, pick a language) 4-letter words containing only a-f. As someone mentioned, this could be expanded with 1337-speak.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's cool, but I'm sure it broke the relationship between ip addresses. Like it would be hard to tell if 1 IP was 1 higher or lower than another/ in the same /28 subnet, etc

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, who do you think deployed it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] 28 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Does IPv6 scare you so much that you start craving the monstrosity known as NAT44?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Idk man, NAT makes a lot of sense once you get used to it. And it's pretty cozy with its firewall features. And somewhat human readable ipv4 addresses are nice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    ISPs putting you behind NAT is not cozy.

    They charge extra for a feature called "static IP". But the IP address not being static is not the issue, for me at least. You could host stuff with a dynamic IP back in 2000s/2010s. But no, now you get to share the same IPv4 address with a bunch of other households, unless you pay extra.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Ha, yeah that sucks and I'd absolutely hate it if I were behind a CGNAT. But I believe most ISPs don't do that. None of mine ever have. Just like how most ISPs provide you with an ipv6 address range, but not all. Fact is that crappy ISPs can screw up your network no matter what ip spec you're using.

    And I've never heard of a business network being behind an ISP controlled CGNAT. A NAT you control can be nice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The "firewall" features are called connection tracking and, a firewall. With IPv6 I have my firewall setup very similar to NAT. Established and outgoing new connections are allowed (this is done using connection tracking). Incoming new connections are not allowed unless I open up a specific port.

    Home firewalls SHOULD be setup the same for IPv6, a lot are not and IMO is the main problem right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    The future is now, old man

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ipv6 is strictly superior and i will die on this hill

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't get how regular network works, ipv6 is like 10 times more confusing with all its prefixes and subnets

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I mean they dropped the parts of ip4 that are not used. They only multiplied the number of bits by 4, otherwise it's the exact same ideas. The confusing part might be that a device gets multiple addresses off the bat. Using decimal for 128 bits would have made the address even worse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 2 points 1 year ago
    • 3fff:a1:1ab:bc67::63c6:4fa4:40a:9aab/64
    • 2001:db8:a1ab:34ac:67ab:4af3:49a:5bb3/64
    • 3fff:d7a:cafe:77:9952:dc4d:da41:e1d7/64

    I was bored. And need to train ipv6 typing skills.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Ain't nobody never asked for any of this, but it invaded my home computer too!!! IPv6 rapist immigrants are taking over this country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •