• m532@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    If ipv4 wasn’t owned by the address-hogging empire of evil, we wouldn’t need ipv6

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Ain’t nobody never asked for any of this, but it invaded my home computer too!!! IPv6 rapist immigrants are taking over this country.

  • Dumhuvud@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    3 days ago

    /64

    That’s not an address, that’s a whole fucking subnet consisting of 2^64 different addresses. ☝️🤓

  • ikoz@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    3 days ago

    There was a cool project that converted hexadecimal numbers (or IPs) to pronouceable words. I think it was also more dense, and of course faster to say / easier to remember.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just make your IP addresses pronouncable words like feed:deaf:babe:beef:cafe:: problem solved ez (working 2023!)

          • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Yeah, calculation of the amount of possible strings containing only a-f is trivial. But the idea is for addresses to be memorable. So I’m wondering how many strings which are valid IPv6 addresses are possible if you are limited to actual English (or, pick a language) 4-letter words containing only a-f. As someone mentioned, this could be expanded with 1337-speak.

            • Ghoelian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              17 hours ago

              Ahh right, that would be a bit more difficult to calculate.

              I guess you could make a script which just bruteforces all combinations of a-f against an English dictionary. I might try to do that tonight.

    • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s cool, but I’m sure it broke the relationship between ip addresses. Like it would be hard to tell if 1 IP was 1 higher or lower than another/ in the same /28 subnet, etc

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        maybe they could be sorted alphabetically to give you an idea, but yeah, it’d be harder to know for sure without a mixed format like

        worda:wordb::f1

  • kungen@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Does IPv6 scare you so much that you start craving the monstrosity known as NAT44?

    • slate@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      Idk man, NAT makes a lot of sense once you get used to it. And it’s pretty cozy with its firewall features. And somewhat human readable ipv4 addresses are nice.

      • Dumhuvud@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        ISPs putting you behind NAT is not cozy.

        They charge extra for a feature called “static IP”. But the IP address not being static is not the issue, for me at least. You could host stuff with a dynamic IP back in 2000s/2010s. But no, now you get to share the same IPv4 address with a bunch of other households, unless you pay extra.

        • slate@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Ha, yeah that sucks and I’d absolutely hate it if I were behind a CGNAT. But I believe most ISPs don’t do that. None of mine ever have. Just like how most ISPs provide you with an ipv6 address range, but not all. Fact is that crappy ISPs can screw up your network no matter what ip spec you’re using.

          And I’ve never heard of a business network being behind an ISP controlled CGNAT. A NAT you control can be nice.

          • 4am@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            You don’t need a NAT with IPv6, that’s what link-local addressing is for

            • xep@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Unless your ISP won’t support DHCPv6-PD until you pay them extra… want to guess how I know this?

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        The “firewall” features are called connection tracking and, a firewall. With IPv6 I have my firewall setup very similar to NAT. Established and outgoing new connections are allowed (this is done using connection tracking). Incoming new connections are not allowed unless I open up a specific port.

        Home firewalls SHOULD be setup the same for IPv6, a lot are not and IMO is the main problem right now.

  • aliser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I don’t get how regular network works, ipv6 is like 10 times more confusing with all its prefixes and subnets

    • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean they dropped the parts of ip4 that are not used. They only multiplied the number of bits by 4, otherwise it’s the exact same ideas. The confusing part might be that a device gets multiple addresses off the bat. Using decimal for 128 bits would have made the address even worse.