While moving away from IPv4 isn’t really pressing anymore, there are still avoidable annoyances in v4 land.
Just yesterday a friend and I had a lot of fun getting our laptops to connect to a public network. Why? Because IPv4 doesn’t have many private ranges and not only did the address of their captive portal conflict with the address space of a VPN we’re both in, the address of their DNS server also conflicted with the default address space my friend’s Docker setup operated in.
Yeah and I’ve worked for a company that stupidly put their vpn service on 192.168.1.0/24 so most peoples home network would act weird as hell whenever they connect to the work vpn. That’s a poor implementation and shouldn’t be done. Address conflicts are certainly annoying especially when it’s a black box but that’s not a reason to shoehorn everything over to IPv6. I can’t imagine a scenario ever existing that I would have any desire for everything in my house to be uniquely reachable to the world. I have a point of presence to the internet behind my Palo Alto, what I do inside there is incredibly simple with IPv4 and interoperates seamlessly with IPv6. This idea that everything needs to be raw dogging the internet, especially with the current state, or lack of, information security makes no sense to me. Talking about IPv6 not being fully implemented as some sort of critique is ignorant, shows a complete lack of use case analysis, usually erodes away after someone spends a year or so in the real world, and isn’t the gotcha folks seem to think it is.
While moving away from IPv4 isn’t really pressing anymore, there are still avoidable annoyances in v4 land.
Just yesterday a friend and I had a lot of fun getting our laptops to connect to a public network. Why? Because IPv4 doesn’t have many private ranges and not only did the address of their captive portal conflict with the address space of a VPN we’re both in, the address of their DNS server also conflicted with the default address space my friend’s Docker setup operated in.
Figuring that out was a riot.
Yeah and I’ve worked for a company that stupidly put their vpn service on 192.168.1.0/24 so most peoples home network would act weird as hell whenever they connect to the work vpn. That’s a poor implementation and shouldn’t be done. Address conflicts are certainly annoying especially when it’s a black box but that’s not a reason to shoehorn everything over to IPv6. I can’t imagine a scenario ever existing that I would have any desire for everything in my house to be uniquely reachable to the world. I have a point of presence to the internet behind my Palo Alto, what I do inside there is incredibly simple with IPv4 and interoperates seamlessly with IPv6. This idea that everything needs to be raw dogging the internet, especially with the current state, or lack of, information security makes no sense to me. Talking about IPv6 not being fully implemented as some sort of critique is ignorant, shows a complete lack of use case analysis, usually erodes away after someone spends a year or so in the real world, and isn’t the gotcha folks seem to think it is.