IPv6: Fuck you, you’re only allowed one, now. Yeah, yeah, I know there are about 340 undecillion addresses in the space, but I know better than you, no one in history has ever needed to bind different services to the same port on the loopback interface, and if they did they were doing it wrong. Oh you made an RFC draft? Well I let the one from 2015 2012 expire, so good luck with your current proposal, pleb.
So the onus is on every individual user, to pick a random ULA prefix, bind specific addresses from it to the loopback interface, which is a different procedure for different OSes, probably requires root or elevated privileges, can have hard limits on, document it, etc. Greeeeaaaaaaat design. IPv6 gives out /64 like they’re about to turn bad, but can’t spare a /104? Gimme a break.
I can dig a hole with a spoon, too, but if someone made it so that no one was allowed to dig holes with shovels unless they build their own (and have permission to build the shovel), when previously everyone was allowed to dig with shovels, I would not think highly of that person’s wisdom.
Maybe you think G. Huston of APNIC and W. Kumari of Google don’t really know what they’re talking about?
I don’t bother with ULA addresses on my home network and just use the public /56 I have broken into various /64s for each VLAN I have. In a corporate environment, I might use ULA addresses, but since IPv6 is “everything is public by design” and an Enterprise will have a static IPv6 block, if they did it right, it’s not like it’ll change. And for anything that doesn’t need internet, link-local is a thing.
IPv6 isn’t perfect, but I find myself liking it more and more as time goes on. Some of it is habits. Some of it is that I tire of dealing with things like CGNAT and SIP.
IPv6: Fuck you, you’re only allowed one, now. Yeah, yeah, I know there are about 340 undecillion addresses in the space, but I know better than you, no one in history has ever needed to bind different services to the same port on the loopback interface, and if they did they were doing it wrong. Oh you made an RFC draft? Well I let the one from
20152012 expire, so good luck with your current proposal, pleb.Can’t you just use a ULA address for that?
So the onus is on every individual user, to pick a random ULA prefix, bind specific addresses from it to the loopback interface, which is a different procedure for different OSes, probably requires root or elevated privileges, can have hard limits on, document it, etc. Greeeeaaaaaaat design. IPv6 gives out
/64like they’re about to turn bad, but can’t spare a/104? Gimme a break.I can dig a hole with a spoon, too, but if someone made it so that no one was allowed to dig holes with shovels unless they build their own (and have permission to build the shovel), when previously everyone was allowed to dig with shovels, I would not think highly of that person’s wisdom.
Maybe you think G. Huston of APNIC and W. Kumari of Google don’t really know what they’re talking about?
I don’t bother with ULA addresses on my home network and just use the public /56 I have broken into various /64s for each VLAN I have. In a corporate environment, I might use ULA addresses, but since IPv6 is “everything is public by design” and an Enterprise will have a static IPv6 block, if they did it right, it’s not like it’ll change. And for anything that doesn’t need internet, link-local is a thing.
IPv6 isn’t perfect, but I find myself liking it more and more as time goes on. Some of it is habits. Some of it is that I tire of dealing with things like CGNAT and SIP.
Link-local was made for same segment networking made easy
IPv6 link-local: For when you just can’t be bothered to address a damn thing 😂