Am 15. Aug 2022, um 13:44:55 Uhr schrieb Tim Woodall:
> All because the same 10.x addresses had been chosed and renumbering
> one or the other was too hard.
That is why I hate IPv4. With IPv6 there is not NAT necessary and if
ULA is implemented correctly (random bits), almost no collision
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022, Marco wrote:
Am 15. Aug 2022, um 08:15:30 Uhr schrieb Tim Woodall:
Isn't the danger here that everybody starts using fd00::/64. Even for
ipv4, the odds of two sets of private addresses colliding should have
been small...
They may collide, but it is not a real problem,
Am 15. Aug 2022, um 08:15:30 Uhr schrieb Tim Woodall:
> Isn't the danger here that everybody starts using fd00::/64. Even for
> ipv4, the odds of two sets of private addresses colliding should have
> been small...
They may collide, but it is not a real problem, because it only affects
the
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022, David Wright wrote:
On Sun 14 Aug 2022 at 05:35:17 (+), Marco wrote:
Am 13. Aug 2022, um 23:42:17 Uhr schrieb David Wright:
AFAICT the rest of your post is concerned with global IPv6 addresses
rather than local (ULA) ones, which is why the prefix for the home
LAN has
On Sun 14 Aug 2022 at 05:35:17 (+), Marco wrote:
> Am 13. Aug 2022, um 23:42:17 Uhr schrieb David Wright:
>
> > AFAICT the rest of your post is concerned with global IPv6 addresses
> > rather than local (ULA) ones, which is why the prefix for the home
> > LAN has to be given to you rather
Am 13. Aug 2022, um 23:42:17 Uhr schrieb David Wright:
> AFAICT the rest of your post is concerned with global IPv6 addresses
> rather than local (ULA) ones, which is why the prefix for the home
> LAN has to be given to you rather than generated/assigned by yourself.
It is possible to use an
On Sat 13 Aug 2022 at 09:37:02 (-), Curt wrote:
> On 2022-08-13, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 10 Aug 2022 at 08:12:11 (-), Curt wrote:
> >> I never realized that local addresses were fundamentally identical in all
> >> local networks because there weren't enough addresses in the first
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022, mick.crane wrote:
On 2022-08-13 10:37, Curt wrote:
Getting Your IPv6 Addresses
with 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses you'd
think everything could have it's own permanently but it would likely be too
slow to find it without being able to
On 2022-08-13 10:37, Curt wrote:
Getting Your IPv6 Addresses
with 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses you'd
think everything could have it's own permanently but it would likely be
too slow to find it without being able to narrow it down a bit and it
would be a
On 2022-08-13, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 10 Aug 2022 at 08:12:11 (-), Curt wrote:
>> I never realized that local addresses were fundamentally identical in all
>> local networks because there weren't enough addresses in the first place,
>
> Don't you need them to be identical because
On Wed 10 Aug 2022 at 08:12:11 (-), Curt wrote:
> I never realized that local addresses were fundamentally identical in all
> local networks because there weren't enough addresses in the first place,
Don't you need them to be identical because otherwise everybody
would have to configure their
On Aug 10, 2022, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 04:12:11 AM Curt wrote:
> > I never realized that local addresses were fundamentally identical in all
> > local networks because there weren't enough addresses in the first
> > place, and that NAT was essentially designed
Hmm, big (to me) oops -- pre-2020 should have been pre-2000
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 08:23:13 AM rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Background: My first encounters with NAT were back in the days (pre-2020)
> when my LAN consisted only of DOS (or Windows) computers. One (DOS)
--
rhk
If you
rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 04:12:11 AM Curt wrote:
> > I never realized that local addresses were fundamentally identical in all
> > local networks because there weren't enough addresses in the first
> > place, and that NAT was essentially designed to palliate this
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 04:12:11 AM Curt wrote:
> I never realized that local addresses were fundamentally identical in all
> local networks because there weren't enough addresses in the first
> place, and that NAT was essentially designed to palliate this shortage.
Yes, aiui, NAT was
On 2022-08-09, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 05:15:15PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:04:13 +
>> Andy Smith wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:44:54AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > I guess if I read that right, Verizon still supports
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 05:15:15PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:04:13 +
> Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:44:54AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I guess if I read that right, Verizon still supports IPv4 and has not
> > > announced any plans
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:04:13 +
Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:44:54AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 01, 2022 12:08:47 PM Lee wrote:
> > > Verizon FIOS finally rolled out IPv6 in my area. yay!
> >
> > I guess if I read that right, Verizon
Am Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:50:46 +
schrieb Andy Smith :
> In this second reply, because you had said that no ISP will do
> "this" (without saying what "this" is), I thought you were arguing
> that there will be no IPv6 firewall. So my question was "why do you
> think having an IPv6 firewall is
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 10:35:44AM +, Marco wrote:
> Am Tue, 2 Aug 2022 23:02:12 +
> schrieb Andy Smith :
>
> > Why do you believe that having their customer premises equipment do
> > this for v6 is any different from having it do default NAT for v4?
>
> It is additional work and
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 6:36 AM Marco wrote:
> Am Tue, 2 Aug 2022 23:02:12 +
> schrieb Andy Smith :
>
> > Why do you believe that having their customer premises equipment do
> > this for v6 is any different from having it do default NAT for v4?
>
> It is additional work and it breaks certain
Am Tue, 2 Aug 2022 23:02:12 +
schrieb Andy Smith :
> Why do you believe that having their customer premises equipment do
> this for v6 is any different from having it do default NAT for v4?
It is additional work and it breaks certain protocols. IPv6 doesn't
need NAT, so why should an ISP do
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 06:23:26PM +, Marco wrote:
> Am Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:40:42 +
> schrieb Andy Smith :
>
> > It's possible that some providers might do IPv6 NAT as well, but I
> > think the majority would just apply some default and quite
> > restrictive packet filter rules.
>
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Andy Smith wrote:
Similarly, it is already possible to have your local network be
IPv6-only and have the router convert anything that is v4-only back
to IPv4. Some mobile networks work like this, and more and more
networks might go this way as v6 eclipses v4, but that is
Am Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:38:31 - (UTC)
schrieb Curt :
> I'm uncertain what happens with local addresses, if anything.
You RFC1918 IPv4 addresses will stay the same and you computer will get
additional addresses from a /64 subnet of 2000::/3.
These are public addresses - no nasty and slow NAT
Am Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:40:42 +
schrieb Andy Smith :
> It's possible that some providers might do IPv6 NAT as well, but I
> think the majority would just apply some default and quite
> restrictive packet filter rules.
I have never seen that and it makes no sense to do that for a provider
Am Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:01:44 -0400
schrieb rhkra...@gmail.com:
> I know that IPv6 is a much larger address space so, iiuc, it would be
> harder for a "cracker" to find IPv6, but I'd probably want to
> continue to run behind NAT, so the idea that I wouldn't even know if
> my ISP switched to IPv6
Am Tue, 2 Aug 2022 10:44:54 -0400
schrieb rhkra...@gmail.com:
> I guess if I read that right, Verizon still supports IPv4 and has not
> announced any plans to discontinue it?
>
> I feel like I'm getting too old to learn (too many) new things, so if
> my ISP made a similar announcement, I'd want
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 04:38:31PM -, Curt wrote:
> I'm uncertain what happens with local addresses [in IPv6], if
> anything.
At the moment if you are using RFC1918 IPv4 addresses on your
network, it's either an isolated network, or else it has a router
that does NAT to convert those
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 12:01:44PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> I know that IPv6 is a much larger address space so, iiuc, it would be harder
> for a "cracker" to find IPv6, but I'd probably want to continue to run behind
> NAT, so the idea that I wouldn't even know if my ISP
On 2022-08-02, Andy Smith wrote:
>
>> Or, I'd be looking for a very simple explanation of how to switch to and use
>> Ipv6 -- not looking for that now, but Imight have to at some point. :-(
>
> Just do nothing.
>
That's exactly what I've done about it, nothing. All I've understood
concerning
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 12:01:44PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I know this is probably a silly worry, but I run behind an IPv4 NAT,
which makes me feel fairly safe.
This is a common, but wrong, idea; NAT doesn't keep you safe, a packet
filter keeps you safe. You can have either one
On Tuesday, August 02, 2022 11:04:13 AM Andy Smith wrote:
> But in reality you probably aren't ever going to have to take
> any action with regard to IPv6.
...
> Most of Sky's
> customers will not know or care that at some point IPv6 got switched
> on for them.
Well, I know this is probably a
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:44:54AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 01, 2022 12:08:47 PM Lee wrote:
> > Verizon FIOS finally rolled out IPv6 in my area. yay!
>
> I guess if I read that right, Verizon still supports IPv4 and has not
> announced any plans to
On 8/2/22, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 01, 2022 12:08:47 PM Lee wrote:
>> Verizon FIOS finally rolled out IPv6 in my area. yay!
>
> I guess if I read that right, Verizon still supports IPv4 and has not
> announced any plans to discontinue it?
correct
it's quite likely that I'll
On Monday, August 01, 2022 12:08:47 PM Lee wrote:
> Verizon FIOS finally rolled out IPv6 in my area. yay!
I guess if I read that right, Verizon still supports IPv4 and has not
announced any plans to discontinue it?
I feel like I'm getting too old to learn (too many) new things, so if my ISP
36 matches
Mail list logo
