So, the designers of IPv6 could not conceive that somebody could have less than 2^64 devices and still want to put them in separate networks?
Networks are allocated as
So now my ISP will have a say in how many internal networks I have?
Yes and no. You _can_ allocate networks smaller than a
And this is supposed to be better than IPV4 with NAT?
Oddly enough, yes - ISPs really shouldn't be restricting your internal infrastructure. If your ISP is being a dick about this then the answer is pretty obvious - switch to another ISP, it isn't as if ISPs are thin on the ground.
People who think they need end-to-end connectivity for everything don't understand networking. It's not only not required, it is undesirable in most cases.
Its undesirable in _some_ cases, it's absolutely required in others. So if you have a single IP address and you have to NAT everything, you win in the "some cases" situation and you lose for "others" (even worse with CGNAT). If you get rid of NAT and stick a stateful firewall in, you get the best of both worlds and can choose the best for the situation at hand.
As someone who's not really a networking guy, this!
I like the extra layer NAT provides. It's no substitute for a firewall of course, but having your internal boxes not publicly addressable at all adds an extra layer of warm and fuzzy.
Is this attitude wrong? Probably. But it is also pervasive.
That attitude is definitely wrong. The warm fuzzyness you're currently feeling is false security - lots of ways to trick a NAT into giving access to internal machines that you think are unaddressable. What you need is a stateful firewall - that gives you real security without breaking all the stuff that NAT does.
WTF do you need a
/64 is only big enough for a single network.
IPv6 would help both enormously.
In the long term, yes. In the short term, going offline for the 93.69% of their users who don't have IPv6 yet would certainly be seen my most as a completely dickish move - I'm pretty sure their investors would be upset, for one thing.
Lower latency on routing means faster responses.
How does IPv6 yield lower latency? If anything, the latency on IPv6 is often slightly higher than IPv4 owing to the prevalence of IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels where native IPv6 interlinks aren't available, along with larger headers slightly increasing the latency of cut-through routing.
IP Mobility means users can move between ISPs without posts breaking, losing responses to queries, losing hangout or other chat service connections, or having to continually re-authenticate.
Does anyone actually implement IP mobility? It requires support from your ISP, and I've not heard anything about any ISPs implementing it.
Autoconfiguration means both can add servers just by switching the new machines on.
DHCP does pretty much the same under IPv4 - I can't see this being a boon to Google/Facebook. (TBH I wouldn't be surprised if their infrastructure was too complex for any of these protocols - they've probably got some home baked protocol for doing that stuff).
Because IPv4 has no native security, it's vulnerable to a much wider range of attacks and there's nothing the vendors can do about them.
So no different from IPv6 then... both protocols have ipsec support (I think it's mandatory for IPv6 whereas the IPv4 version is an optional backport, but all major OSes support it in both cases so that's neither here nor there). However, ipsec use is currently pretty much reserved for VPNs - you can do adhoc ipsec but no one does. About the only thing you get from IPv6 is that IP addresses are much sparser, so scanning/attacking by picking addresses at random isn't effective.
I want my Pink Ponies back... that was original... everything yesterday was so lame I just avoided slashdot for the entire day...
Me? I need to get an upgraded detector to catch the one asshole I found out there with a modern LIDAR.
Perhaps not speeding in the first place would work better?
Whilst CFLs worked as a stop-gap until LED lights could become feasible, I do wonder if they have done long term harm to people's acceptance of efficient lighting - for a long time, "energy efficient lighting" is going to be associated with "takes 5 minutes to get bright enough to see" thanks to CFLs...
That said, I might miss CFLs in my bedside lights if I ever have to replace them with LEDs - that's the one place where a slow start-up is quite nice!
So exactly what shady deals has she been concocting with her rich chums then? And leaving no email trail?
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein