News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues. Parent comment

Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by labcomputer on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @04:16PM (#35719379)
This sounds like and A/B problem. You’re asking how to do A but what you really want is B. But you’re asking about A because that’s how you think you’d get B in the ipv4 world.

Your ISP should give your router a /56 prefix via PD, which you can divvy up into 256 networks internally. Alternatively, if you don’t need globally-routable addresses, just pick a ULA prefix and have your router advertise it internally.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by dblitt on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @09:50PM (#35722287)
What happens if your ISP just gives you a /64?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by ikiris on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @10:53PM (#35722764)
What happens if the moon is made of cheese?

Outside of obscure hypotheticals you make do or switch providers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by jlokier on Thursday April 27, 2023 @03:25AM (#35724456)
It's not that obscure. It's common to be given a /64 to a home, or even to small business premises. Some even get a /128.

So it's reasonable to wonder how people deal with that problem when needing multiple subnets. Many locations don't have a realistic choice of affordable providers, or none of them provide IPv6 with a shorter prefix anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by GoblinSlayer on Thursday April 27, 2023 @05:59AM (#35725731)
Depends on what you want to do. Maybe use one network or assign static addresses. Here's a post on /120 networks: https://blog.ipspace.net/2011/05/ipv6-neighbor-discovery-exh...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by BenjiWiebe on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @11:22PM (#35722944)
My ISP doesn't even give me a /32 v4 or a /128 v6. CGNAT v4 only.

I'd love to have to make do with a /64.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by riobard on Thursday April 27, 2023 @12:20AM (#35723255)
My ISP did exactly that. I bugged their customer support several times over a month and they finally caved and gave me /60 now.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by InfamousRece on Thursday April 27, 2023 @07:45AM (#35726612)
My ISP gives me /64. It is unusable with consumer routers.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by magicalhippo on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @10:48PM (#35722722)
ISPs should do a lot of things, but when it comes to IPv6 many don't. Mine gives me a new prefix every time my router boots. Meanwhile I've had my DHCP allocated IPv4 for 3 years now...

Given that the IPv6 standard was written by enterprise network people with no thought how it would get deployed to the masses, lots of software is still a PITA to work with if you got an ISP like mine.

[ Parent | on HN ]