Today in our newest take on “older technology is better”: why NAT rules!
Well… I still like IPv6 better than ATM and those darn virtual circuit identifiers.
Another Technical Mistake
Hah. But to be fair, ATM did have a specific use that it worked great for. That is the move to digital voice circuits. The small fixed cell size and built in QoS meant that if you had a fixed line size you could fit X voice channels, and they would all be extremely low latency and share the bandwidth fairly. You didn’t need to buffer beyond one cell of data and you didn’t need to include overhead beyond the cell headers.
ATM was designed to handle the “future” or digital network needs. But, the immediate use was about voice frames and that likely dictated a lot of the design I’d expect.
Bro used <> instead of !=
What languages use this? I don’t like it!
On the other hand it goes well with >= and <=. If >= means “either > or =” then <> means “either < or >”, it checks out.
But I still don’t like it.
Damn I never understood it but now it makes sense thanks to you
Yea it’s ugly 😭
logo does
SQL uses it but yeah, not programming language :p.
I was on mobile so I didn’t have a
.XComposeavailable to type≠.SQL is definitely a programming language. Most dialects are Turing-complete in some way. Some allow custom functions and stored procedures.
I was on mobile so I didn’t have a
.XComposeavailable to type.I feel the opposite. On mobile I have much easier access to special characters. I just need to hold down characters to get more variants.
Yup, ≠ is right “under” =. As is ≈.
If you want to be able to write practically anything on mobile, including ≠, ≈, ‰, ℝ etc., have a look at Unexpected keyboard. No spellcheck or autocomplete, though.
F# definitely and maybe Haskell and OCaml as well? Elixir and Erlang use it as a binary concatenation operator.
Yes for OCaml. Haskell’s inequality is defined as
/=(for ≠).<>is usually the Monoidmappendoperator (i.e. generalized binary concatenation).
SQL
BASIC. At least VB.
I think Excel formulas also use this, but it’s been a long time so I might be misremembering.
Can confirm also BASICA, GWBASIC, QBASIC, and QuickBASIC
I can remember an up, but would never an ipv6
I would love to start using ipv6 but my ISP decided that their devices won’t support prefix delegation because “nobody uses ipv6 and nothing works with it”
I feel like I could learn Dutch, my English is already broken
Wait… Do we not like NAT now??
Boy do we like it!
NAT is, and has always been, an ugly hack. Why would anyone like it?
Doesn’t that mean private non-routable subnets like 10.x or 192.x have always been a hack?
At the cool network kids hate nat. 😤
16 ≠ 6
Honestly we should just use 4 bit ip addresses, it’s too hard for me to remember ipv4 addresses anyways. Carrier grade NAT will take care of the rest.
Why compromise? Use 1-bit IP addresses.
Finally, a use for my 1-bit bloom filter!
You can still NAT IPv6
Yes, but why would you want to? We have enough addresses for the foreseeable future.
That’s what they thought for IPv4… and for 2-year digits… and for…
1:1 stateless NAT is useful for static IPs. Since all your addresses are otherwise global, if you need to switch providers or give up your /64, then you’ll need to re-address your static addresses. Instead, you can give your machines static private IPs, and just translate the prefix when going through NAT. It’s a lot less horrible than IPv4 NAT since there’s no connection tracking needed.
This is something I probably should have done setting up my home Kubernetes cluster. My current IPv6 prefix is from Hurricane Electric, and if my ISP ever gives me a real IPv6 prefix, I will have to delete the entire cluster and recreate it with the new prefix.
It should only be needed if your ISP is brain-dead and only gives you a /64 instead of what they should be doing and also giving you a /56 or /48 with prefix delegation (I.e it should be getting both a 64 for the wan interface, and a delegation for routing)
You router should be using that prefix and sticking just a /64 on the lan interface which it advertises appropriately (and you can route the others as you please)
Internal ipv6 should be using site-local ipv6, and if they have internet access they would have both addresses.
And if you want static ips either use dhcp6 or disable the randomisation of eui64 addresses
I have static IPs for my Kubernetes nodes, and I actually use DHCPv6 for dynamic dns so I can reach any device with a hostname, even though most of my devices don’t have static IPs.
The issue is those static IPs are tied to my current ISP, preventing me from changing ISPs without deleting my entire Kubernetes cluster.
My ISP does this right (provides a /56 for routing), but unfortunately both are dynamic and change periodically. Every time I disconnect and reconnect from the internet, I get a different prefix.
I ended up needing to have ULAs for devices where I need to know the IPv6 address on my network (e.g. my internal DNS servers).
Indeed, that’s correct ula usage, but shouldn’t need nat rewriting. The global prefixes just need to be advertised by RA packets
I use openwrt on my home network which uses dnsmasq for dhcp. It can give a static suffix which just works with the global prefix on the interface and the site local / ula prefix it uses
Note that Android doesn’t support DHCPv6, just in case you have Android devices and ever have to debug IPv6 on them.
64 for the wan interface
Nitpicking, but the address for the wan interface wouldn’t have a prefix, so the host would just set it as a /128 (point-to-point)
Hurricane Electric gives me a /48.
Site-local ipv6 would work here as well, true. But then my containers wouldnt have internet access. Kubernetes containers use Ipam with a single subnet, they can’t use SLAAC.
Point is, you should be able to have them have both. Or stick a reverse proxy in front that can translate. Unless they’re somehow meant to be directly internet reachable the public addresses could be autogenerated
Full disclosure though I don’t know anything about kubernetes.
Yeah, I wonder if there’s any proposals to allow for multiple IPV6 addresses in Kubernetes, it would be a much better solution than NAT.
As far as I know, it’s currently not possible. Every container/Pod receives a single IPv4 and/or IPv6 address on creation from the networking driver.
Even if you give it multiple ip6 cidrs to allocate?
So you don’t need to change your network if your isp changes.
You should only assign static ipv6 to servers, in theory you could just define a host id and use a prefix too. But, most people at home really aren’t running enough servers to make that worthwhile. Everything else should just pick up new addresses fine using ND.
There ought to be more servers.
Will the app for the smart thermostat be updated three years from now and still be useful? If it was instead a web server app on a routable IP, it wouldn’t matter provided they didn’t fuck up the authentication and access control.
Yeah, but they’re not. That’s the modern world. But also even if it was a web server there’s usually ways to advertise the IP for the app to connect to. I’ve seen other stuff do that. So getting an IP is easy. Once the app knows the IP and if you really want to allow connections from outside to your IOT devices (I wouldn’t) it could remember the IP and allow that.
You really don’t need to give a fixed IP to everything. I think I’ve given 1 or 2 things fixed IPv6 IPs. Everything else is fine with what it assigns itself.
The other app off the top of my head is VoIP. You should be able to “dial” a number directly. Most solutions go through the company’s data center first in order to pierce through NAT. Which makes it more expensive, less reliable, slower, and more susceptible to snooping.
There’s a “if you build it, they will come” effect here. Once you can address hosts directly, a whole bunch of things become better, and new ideas that were infeasible are now feasible. They don’t exist now because they can’t.
The solution to that is to buy a net block. IPV6 address space is very affordable.
You can use ULAs (unique local addresses) or that purpose. Your devices can have a ULA IPv6 address that’s constant, and a public IPv6 that changes. Both can be assigned using SLAAC (no manual config required).
I do this because the /56 IPv6 range provided by my ISP is dynamic, and periodically changes.
Yes but you’d still be performing NAT. It’s at least 1:1.
You’ll need to deal with firewall rules regardless, and drop IPs into policies. IPv6 doesn’t remove any of those chores but gets rid of having to maintain tables to deal with many-to-one NAT.
You wouldn’t need NAT. The ULA is used on the internal network, and the public IP is for internet access. Neither of those need NAT.
If you use a single shared public ip then you’re using some amount of address translation.
If you’re using an external ip address that’s different than an internal ip address but both are assigned to a single host the you’re doing 1:1 NAT.
At least that’s how I understand ipv4 and I don’t think ipv6 is much different.
If you use a single shared public ip then you’re using some amount of address translation
This is practically never the case with IPv6. Usually, each device gets its own public IP. This is how the IPv4 internet used to work in the old days (one IP = one device), and it solves so many problems. No need for NAT traversal since there’s no NAT. No need for split horizon DNS since the same IP works both inside and outside your network.
There’s still a firewall on the router, of course.
At least that’s how I understand ipv4 and I don’t think ipv6 is much different.
With IPv6, each network device can have multiple IPs. If you have an internal IP for whatever reason, it’s in addition to your public IP, not instead of it.
IPs are often allocated using SLAAC (stateless address auto config). The router tells the client "I have a network you can use; its IP range is
2001:whatever/64, and the client auto-generates an IP in that range, either based on the MAC address (always the same) or random, depending on if privacy extensions are enabled - usually on for client systems and off for servers.
What translates the public ip to the internal ip? Aren’t they different?
You shouldn’t have to?? Maybe you might need to change the mask in your firewall settings if the ipv6 allocation block size changes but that should be it.
Everything else should just work as normal.
I haven’t read anything this cursed in a while
Only if you’re a masochist.
The problem is we’re projected to run out of unique IPv4 addresses by 2003.
And we are facing the effects of it as we’re speaking. CGNAT and protocols like TURN were not invented without a reason.
Not a big deal. We’re projected to run out of years by 2000 and then the world will end.
And it took a lot of hard work by a lot of people to adopt new date standards to avoid that problem. Now it’s time to adopt new IP standards, and it’s going to take a lot of hard work by a lot of people.
Oh god that brings back memories. Reallying dumb ones of people but memories none the less
Ipv6 is not 6 bytes? 8 segments of 2 bytes for a sum of 16 bytes?
Or am I stupid right now?
Yes, you’ve got it right. <> means ≠. 16 is not equal to 6.
Never seen that Notation.
IPv6 is unfortunately not six bytes, no. For some weird, ass-backwards reason.
Because 48 bits over 32 bits does not really solve the problems with ip4. 128 bits basically gives one ip4 address space to each square meter of earth. Ip6 also drops all the unused and silly parts of ip4 too.
128 bits basically gives one ip4 address space to each square meter of earth.
That sounds like terminal stage capitalism to me. Why would we want every tree in the Amazons to be cybergorized with its own IP? I don’t know Rick, 64
kbitsbits ought to be enough for everybody, and I’m already risking it.Because bits are not expensive anymore, and if we used 64 bits, we might run out faster than the time needed to convert to a new standard. (After all, IPv4 is still around 26 years after IPv6 was drafted.) Also see the other notes about how networks get segmented in non-optimal ways. It’s a good thing to not have to worry about address space when designing your network.
Our network architecture has the tendency to waste IP addresses. A subnet may have 10 devices but have 256 IPs (e.g. a /24 network like 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.0.255) - that’s 246 wasted addresses. This wastage is kinda unavoidable since we’d need to keep our routing tables from being too fragmented.
With that in mind 64-bit addressing space is possibly not enough, unless we revert to methods like NAT which come with their own disadvantages.
We have already used up about one /11 block of the IPv6 internet. That’s 128-11=117 bits. If we replace the standardized /64 subnets of IPv6 with old /24 subnets typical in IPv4 networks, you get 61 bits. That’s dangerously close to the upper limit of a hypothetical 64-bit IPv5 internet.
2 bytes would give you 0-4 per segment. Or about IPv2
2 bytes would be 0-65535 and 8 sets is ~3.4×10^(38) addresses
Whoops, bits vs bytes. This is why I should stop commenting before I’ve had coffee
Typing addresses in ipv4 is ingrained into my brain, but zero NATing with ipv6 is magical.
Mystery of the universe, would IPv5 have hit the sweet spot and taken off?
I’m still on IPv3, haven’t updated yet.
I felt dirty! and broke so much shit when i had to implement NAT on networks in the mid 90’s. Nowdays with ipv6 and getting rid of NAT is much more liberating. The difference is staggering!
- you do not need NAT any longer, firewall is the security, just like on ipv4, just less obscurity.
- you do not need dns views, to workaround NAT any more
- you do not need hairpin NAT to workaround NAT any more
- you do not need to renumber to resize a network. they are always /64, and the answer to how many hosts can it fit is: ALL of them!
- many ALG’s will be unnecessary since there is not NAT.
- vpn’s are easier, since it can be the same address both inside and outside the vpn, the firewall (or host even) enforces the encryption.
- vpn’s are MUCH easier since you will have less rfc1918 collisions due to some other network using the rfc1918 of the vpn’s network
- vpn’s are MUCH MUCH easier since you will have less rfc1918 collisions due to you using the rfc1918 of the vpn partner network, to 1:1 nat a previous vpn network you collided with some months ago… ARGH!!!
- vpn are generally less required, heck i swear 95% of the time the VPN are just to workaround the NAT problem and the data is pointlessly double or triple encrypted.
- you can make more granular firewall rules (eg the spesific host, or network of the source address, instead of the whole enterprise’s public ip) this is real tangible improved security, where any random machine in a network you do not control. do not automatically have openings into your own network.
- firewall objects can if it is suited easily use and depend on FQDN DNS objects when allowing traffic. reducing the need of coordinating firewall object ip address changes between 15 companies.
- firewall rules are easier, more readable, and much more predictable how they will work. All the hairpin nat, public to private nat, private to public nat for a thing that need a different public ip, 1:1 nat for a separate zone, NAT to a vpn or 50 (where 10 of them are 1:1 nat due to collisions, making you require 4 dns views of the same ip space!! ) very quickly gets messy and unreadable. this is probably the largest security benefit. just to reduce the complexity.
- much easier to get people to use dns, since nobody wants to remember ipv6 addresses :D
- nibbles in the ipv6 address can have meanings you assign to them, making the networks and structure both easy to remember and logically structured.
- aggregating routes becomes very easy if you design your network that way.
- firewall policies can become easier if you design your network that way.
- your routing tables is leaner and easier, and of a better consistency. We have 1 large public ipv6 prefix, but 25ish ipv4 prefixes of all kinds of various sizes.
- no need to spend $$ to buy even more ipv4 prefixes.
- no need to have spent hundreds of $$ on a new ipv4 prefix only to be unable to use them for over a year because you need to sanitize the addresses from all the reputation filters. and constantly hound geo ip database providers to update the new country of the prefix. (i am bitter, can you tell…)
- did i mention no need to renumber since you need to grow the /24 to /23 due to to many hosts in a network ?
- did i mention no need to renumber 2 /24’s to /25’s to make space for that larger /23.
- you do not even need any ipv4 addresses any more, use a public NAT64 service, for outgoing. and for incoming just use one of the many free public ipv4 to ipv6 proxies for your services online. for a homelab i really like http://v4-frontend.netiter.com/ (go support them) But most large business l networks use cloudflare, or akamai
- since you do not need your ipv4 address space any more, you can ~~sell them for a profit $$$ ~~ return them to the RIR and give some address space to one of the thousands of companies struggling because they do not have any IPv4 : https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-waiting-list/
- much lower latency on ipv6, since you do not go across a cloud based ipv4 to ipv6 proxy in order to reach the service ;)
Now the greatest and best effect of ipv6 is none of the above. It is that with ipv6 we have a slim hope of reclaiming some of what made the Internet GREAT in the first place. When we all stood on equal footing. Anyone could host their own service. Now we are all vassals of the large companies that have made the common person into a CGNAT4444 using consumer mindlessly lapping up what the large company providers sees fit to provide us. with no way to even try to be a real and true part of the Internet. Fight the companies that want to make you a eyeball in their statistic, Set up your own IPv6 service on the Internet today !
If all that is true, then why do I still hate ipv6 so much.
What is localhost now again…
::1
I’d bet it’s this little bugger " : "
It is for me.
🧓
I assume the normal fear of unknown things. It is hard to hate ipv6 once you have equivalent competence in ipv4 and ipv6.
For me is because it’s so fucking slow. As soon as I disable ipv6 on every device it has better speeds.
IPv6 is trash.
Lol that’s ridiculous. There’s nothing about ipv6 that’d make it any slower
There’s one practical thing. Routers have had years to optimize IPv4 routing, which has to be redone for IPv6. Same with networking stacks in general.
In theory, IPv6 should be faster by not having to do bullshit like CGNAT. There’s every reason to think it’ll match that advantage if we just make it happen.
In the USA, around 50% of Google traffic and 60% of Facebook traffic goes over IPv6. The largest mobile carriers in the US are nearly entirely IPv6-only too (customers don’t get an IPv4 address, just an IPv6 one), using 464XLAT to connect to legacy IPv4-only servers. I’m sure we’d know if routing with IPv6 was slower. Google’s data actually shows 10ms lower latency over IPv6: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
Tell that to your ISP which has fucked their IPv6 deployment up. In my experience IPv6 is actually faster since it bypasses the IPv4 CGNAT.
On busy days my IPv4 connection can get as slow as 15KB/s, now that’s trash.
Google’s data shows that IPv6 is usually faster. Their metrics show an average of 10ms less latency over IPv6 in the USA and Canada: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
But IPv4 addresses are easier to remember!
/s
I could see a point of having home networks stay on IPv4 and NAT with an external v6 address.
That would keep the current security model for home networks where we can assume general tech litteracy is low.
That is not how it works. You can have a home network on ipv6. And it can reach all of ipv4 via nat ( just like ipv4 do today). A net with only ipv4 can not reach any ipv6 without a proxy that terminst the v4 connection and make a new v6 connection. since ipv6 is backwards compatible. But ipv4 is naturally not forwards compatible.
Also it is the default deny of the stateful firewall that always coexist with NAT, since NAT depends on that state, that is the security in a NAT router.
That default deny is not in any way dependant on the NAT part.Interesting, I thought NAT could handle it…
If there is a ipv6 service online. That you want to reach from a v4 only client. You can set up a fixed 1:1 nat on your firewall where you define a fake internal ipv4 address -> destination NAT onto the public ipv6 address of the service. And SRC NAT64 embed your clients internal v4 into the source ipv6 for the return traffic. And provide a internal dns view A record pointing to the fake internal ip record. It would work, but does not scale very well. Since you would have to set this up for every ipv6 ip.
A better solution would be to use a dualstack SOCKS5 proxy with dns forwarding where the client would use the IPv6 of the proxy for the connection. But that does not use NAT tho.
The best solution is to deploy IPv6 ofcourse. ;)
Con: you are now even more dependent on DNS, increasing the blast radius even more
ifwhen it breaks.But DNS rarely break. The meme about it beeing DNS’s fault is more often then not just a symptom of the complexity of IPv4 NAT problem.
If i should guesstimate i think atleast 95% of the dns issues i have ever seen, are just confusion of what dns views they are in. confusion of inside and outside nat records. And forgetting to configure the inside when doing the outside or vice verca. DNS is very robust and stable when you can get rid of that complexity.
That beeing said, there are people that insist on obscurity beeing security (sigh) and want to keep doing dns views when using IPv6. But even then things are much easier when the result would be the same in either view.
That beeing said, there are people that insist on obscurity beeing security (sigh) and want to keep doing dns views when using IPv6. But even then things are much easier when the result would be the same in either view.
OMG!!
This guys a bee! Everybody run!!!
I broke DNS plenty of times in my homelab independent from NAT. In the last few months:
- didn’t turn off DNS server in a wifi router set up as bridged access point
- dnsmasq failing to start because I removed an interface
- dnsmasq failing to start because the kernel/udev didn’t rename an interface on time
- dnsmasq failing to start because hostapd error didn’t set proper interface settings
- forgot to remove static DNS entries in /etc/hosts used for testing
- forgot to remove DNS entries from /etc/resolve.conf after visiting a friend and working on his setup
Yes, most of them is my dumb ass making mistakes, but in the end it’s something that constantly breaks and it helps knowing the IP addresses of my servers and routers.
Aditionally, obscurity is a security helper. The problem is relying only on obscurity. But if I have proper firewall rules in place and strong usernames and passwords I still prefer if you don’t even know the IP addresses of my servers on top of that (in case I break some of the other security layers).
I felt dirty!
“Senpai, route me like one of your French ISPs”
Imagine actually having ipv6 available through your ISP.
…and ever if my ISP actually provided one, getting a static one costs money so there’s no difference in the end.
I just get that included. Like the Norwegian guy, but in Switzerland from Init7
I guess I am lucky. 3 out of 3 isp’s available from in my region provide IPv6 with a dhcp-pd assigned stable address by default. (Norway)
Yeah, here in Russia the ISPs and IT infrastructure guys seem to be treating IPv6 like it has cooties. I can’t find an article (and it’d be in russian anyway) but as far back as 2022, if you get IPv6 you can expect a variety of issues with it, ranging from “you need to reboot your router every once in a while” to “you technically have v6 but good luck actually browsing v6 internet”.
And of course, why would they give you a stable IP when they can charge for it :T. At least it’s only a third the price of a stable IPv4.
My current ISP technically provides v6 according to their site - but my connection doesn’t have it, and since there’s nothing about it in the years-old contract, I’d need to redo that if I want to complain.
You have my sympathy. I do not know of a sure way to get isp’s to behave. Espesially not if they have regional monopoly
There are usually plenty of choices for ISPs here, actually. But switching between them isn’t likely to give me IPv6 since either they share a magistral or the hardware is just plain old. That, and IPv6 is just not a thing anyone markets.
…and with the current fuckery going on, I doubt many of them have budget for big upgrades. Or maybe even access to hardware to buy.
Sir this is a Wendy’s
JK that’s a lot of good info
i got like a third through it before scrolling to the bottom to see how long it was. omg! should be the canonical example of the opposite of a shitpost ha
Its as long as an ipv6 address
This is one of the best comments I’ve ever read on Lemmy. Thanks for writing it. I fully agree with all your points!
Thank you! :) I also notice i compleatly forgot the port exhaustion issue we see with larger networks behind roo few ipv4 NAT addresses…
IPv6 = second system effect. It’s way too complicated for what was needed and this complexity hinders its adoption. We don’t need 100 ip addresses for every atom on the earth’s surface and we never will.
They should have just added an octet to IPv4 and be done with it.
Every time there’s a “just add an extra octet” argument, I feel some people are completely clueless about how hardware works.
Most hardware comes with 32-bit or 64-bit registers. (Recall that IPv6 came out just a year before the Nintendo 64.) By adding only an extra octet, thus having 40 bits for addressing, you are wasting 24 bits of a 64-bit register. Or wasting 24 bits of a 32-bit register pair. Either way, this is inefficient.
And there’s also the fact that the modern internet is actually reaching the upper limits of a hypothetical 64-bit IPv5: https://lemmy.world/comment/10727792. Do we want to spend yet another two decades just to transition to a newer protocol?
you are wasting 24 bits of a 64-bit register
You’re not “wasting” them if you just don’t need the extra bits, Are you wasting a 32-bit
integerif your program only ever counts up to 1000000?Even so when you do start to need them, you can gradually make the other bits available in the form of more octets. Like you can just define it as a.b.c.d.e = 0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.0.a.b.c.d.e
Recall that IPv6 came out just a year before the Nintendo 64
If you’re worried about wasting registers it makes even less sense to switch from a 32-bit addressing space to a 128-bit one in one go.
Anyway, your explanation is a perfect example of “second system effect” at work. You get all caught up in the mistakes of the first system, in casu the lack of addressing bits, and then you go all out to correct those mistakes for your second system while ignoring the real world implications of your choices. And now you are surprised that nobody wants to use your 128-bit abomination.
You’re not “wasting” them if you just don’t need the extra bits
We are talking about addresses, not counters. An inherently hierarchical one at that (i.e. it goes from top to bottom using up all bits). If you don’t use the bits you are actually wasting them.
you can gradually make the other bits available in the form of more octets
So why didn’t we make other bits available for IPv4 gradually? Yeah, same issue as that: Forwards compatibility. If you meant that this “IPv5” standard should specify compulsory 64-bit support from the very beginning, then why are you arbitrarily restricting the use of some bits in the first place?
If you’re worried about wasting registers it makes even less sense to switch from a 32-bit addressing space to a 128-bit one in one go
All the 128 bits are used in IPv6. ;)
We are talking about addresses, not counters. An inherently hierarchical one at that. If you don’t use the bits you are actually wasting them.
Bullshit.
I have a 64-bit computer, it can address up to 18.4 exabytes, but my computer only has 32GB, so I will never use the vast majority that address space. Am I “wasting” it?
All the 128 bits are used in IPv6. ;)
Yes they are all “used” but you don’t need them. We are not using 2^128 ip addresses in the world. In your own terminology: you are using 4 registers for a 2 register problem. That is much more wasteful in terms of hardware than using 40 bits to represent an ip address and wasting 24 bits.
I have a 64-bit computer, it can address up to 18.4 exabytes, but my computer only has 32GB, so I will never use the vast majority that address space. Am I “wasting” it?
You are using the addressing bits in the form of virtual memory. Right now. Unless you run a unikernel system, then in that case you could be right, but I doubt it.
Yes they are all “used” but you don’t need them. We are not using 2^128 ip addresses in the world.
But we do need them! The last 64 bits of your IPv6 addresses are randomized for privacy purposes, it’s either that or your MAC address is used for them. We may not be using those addresses simultaneously but they certainly are used.
Despite that, there still are plenty of empty spaces in IPv6, that’s true. But they will still be used in the future should the opportunity arise. Any “wastage” is artificial, not a built-in deficiency of the protocol. Whereas if we restricted the space to 40 bits, there will be 24 bits wasted forever no matter how.
64-bit IPv5
64-bit IP would be IPv8, not IPv5.
That why we should adopt my ipv12. Its three levels of addresses rach 512 bit longs. One for host one for network and one what ever the heel else need. Planet that’s it we asogn each planet a 512 bit address
Please don’t I barely understand subnetting as it is.
it’s not about using all 100 IP addresses for every atom
it’s about having large enough ranges to allocate them in ways that make sense instead of arbitrarily allocating them by availability
