Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8

Re:Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8 by Dagger2 on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @01:20PM (#29256738)

There's nothing crazy about v6's model -- or at least nothing that isn't also crazy in v4, since v6 uses almost exactly the same networking model that v4 does.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8 by slownews45 on Thursday November 18, 2021 @01:59PM (#29269085)

Have you tried implementing ipv6 in a medium to larger network?

Even folks like google with more money then god and more experts by far than anyone else likely has had some struggles getting their GCP offering alone fully IPv6 enabled.

After enough years I've learned that anyone who says IPv6 is simple probably hasn't actually tried rolling it out?

Note I haven't explored IPv6 in Azure, perhaps Microsoft has had an easier time going full native IPv6 in their offering there.

Or what about getting 1 or even a few static IPs from your ISP? Oh right - also a nightmare. There apparently are both plenty of IPv6 IPs but at least in the US can't even get 5 static ones for home use.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8 by Dagger2 on Sunday November 21, 2021 @07:49AM (#29295957)

I didn't say it was simple, just no harder than v4. In many ways it's easier in practice because you don't need to also use NAT on top.

I've got a static /48 from my consumer ISP here -- it sounds like your complaint about that is more about US ISPs than IPv6.

[ Parent | on HN ]