this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
105 points (94.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43891 readers
739 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!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Iv6 doesn't try to simplify routing and remove nat. that's just how things work. Nat is a workaround for ipv4.

Ipv6 is around since 1998. that's not slow to adopt, at that point it is just plain refusal from some because of the costs you mentionend

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month 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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Time isn't the only factor for adoption. Between the adoption of IPv4 and IPv6, the networking stack shifted away from network companies like Novell to the OSes like Windows, which delayed IPv6 support until Vista.

When IPv4 was adopted, the networking industry was a competitive space. When IPv6 came around, it was becoming stagnant, much like Internet Explorer. It wasn't until Windows Vista that IPv6 became an option, Windows 7 for professionals to consider it, and another few years later for it to actually deployable in a secure manner (and that's still questionable).

Most IT support and developers can even play with IPv6 during the early 2000s because our operating systems and network stacks didn't support it. Meanwhile, there was a boom of Internet connected devices that only supported IPv4. There are a few other things that affected adoption, but it really was a pretty bad time for IPv6 migration. It's a little better now, but "better" still isn't very good.