Virtually all current devices today support IPv6 so why are we

Turns out that subdomaining works quite well.

>>60970000
Nice digits

File: Untitled-5.png (79KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 128x128px

>>60970000

>>60970000
Nice quads
Do you mean subnetting?
If so, yes, redistributing old IP blocks and NAT seem to be working semi well, but it's going to be annoying when Carrier Grade NAT is more widely used.

Funnily enough, Comcast has a rather excellent IPv6 implementation, and with the right hardware (not their shit-tier 3-in-one combo) you can request a larger IPv6 block than just a /64

My networking teacher told me you can trace any ipv6 so I don't want it.

>>60970119
Its more machine specific and theres no real speed advantage especially with many still using ipv4 so why do that to yourself?

>>60970119
What he meant is it's globally routable, which is true. And that was how the internet was originally designed to be. But instead of moving to IPv6, we applied a bandaid called NAT. It essentially means you can mask x number of devices behind one or more public IPs. But with a firewall, which is enabled not only on your computer by default (well, except for most *nixes). And most carriers who deploy IPv6 are smart enough for their routers to act as a firewall as well with halfway sensible defaults.

Is this a networking teacher at a grade school or uni? If a university I will facepalm so hard

Because there's no point right now until we actually do run out of IPv4 addresses.

>>60970137
IPv6 privacy extensions fix this, and is enabled in most OSs by default now

>>60970147
Tech school

>>60970147
so you're saying I'll be able to host vidya listen servers behind the router without setting the DMZ or redirecting ports?

ISPs are too lazy to update their infrastructure.

>>60970172
If you have a network firewall (pfSense, the Comcast shit-teir all-in-on, etc) you'll have to allow the traffic through, as that's just to protect your devices from the outside world. But no convoluted port forwarding, and you can chose not to have a network firewall so you don't even have to add that allow rule.

tldr, yes*

>>60970158
That's... not a lot better but more understandable.

IPv6 is the future. 4 Billion IPv4 addresses are only going to last us so long, and we can apply only so many band-aids before things start breaking (started with NAT, moving towards CNAT).

IPv6 is 2^128 addresses. That's 3.4 x 10^28 addresses. Or written out, 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses. That's the number, look it up if you want. That's future proof.

>>60970211
That fucking tech school was fucking crap. None of the servers had activated Windows server and the teacher's Linux knowledge ended at desktop environments in Ubuntu. They basically had us repairing laptops and shit almost the whole day.

>>60969994 Because you can sell ipv4 for about 0.5$ each while v6 costs literally nothing.

>>60969994
>why
Because it's too much work for ISPs, apparently. Mine promised to roll-out IPv6 10 years ago then 5 years ago then I guess they forgot about it.

I've been using a IPv6 tunnel for more than 10 years. Seriously. Perhaps it's even been longer. It works just fine but there are STILL some issues. There was this one guy who came by with a really cheap Android phone from China (the really cheap ones they don't even put a brand name on) and this phone would happily accept IPv6 autoconfiguration of addresses but not routing information. The result was that it spent ages trying to reach websites over IPv6, which failed, before it fell back to IPv4. When you have IPv6 you do notice the small oddities and the few devices that don't speak it.

>>60970119
>>60970147
You can NAT IPv6 too if you want, it works and I suspect that larger corporations will do it on their networks.

>>60970252
Yep, as my wallet is well aware (shakes fist angrily at hosting providers). They hand IPv6 out like candy, you can get multiple /48s from HE for free

>falling for the dns jew ipv6 tricks

>>60970175
"lazy" isn't the right word. It costs a lot of money to retire legacy equipment and upgrade software. There's a LOT involved. They'll hold out until the pressure to upgrade to ipv6 becomes so heavy that they financially have to proceed. Remember that they have shareholders to keep happy.

>>60970434
This is the real reason that deployment is slow. A lot of legacy stuff doesn't handle IPv6 well (or at all), even though it's been a standard for nearly 2 decades. Money drives all.