On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 14:13 +0100, RedShift wrote:
> On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> > Seeing as IPV4 is near it's end of life
> > (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
> > I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to
> > IPV6?
> > Is anyone using it in production already, and what are your experiences with it?
> Haven't switched yet, I have IPv6 at home using sixxs.
> IMO the slow adoption is caused by the complexity IPv6 brings. They
> should have just modified IP to use 128 bits addresses and leave the
> rest as is.
Disagree, IPv4 at this point is a whole heap of hacks. IPv6 throws out
lots of crap and provides for much better performance [routing IPv6
requires much less horsepower than routing IPv4].
> For example, what is the use of a link scoped IPv6 address? Why would
> you want to assign an IP address to yourself that's of no use at all?
It is incredibly useful. There is a lot of traffic that is only
relevant to the local-link. Now two computers on the same wire can
communicate automatically - true zero-configuration. IPv6 uses
link-local for neighbor discovery. Remember IPV6 does not use ARP.
> I can't even figure out what address ranges are reserved for private
> use, is there even such a concept in IPv6?
None, and no. There is no exact equivalent - thank goodness. Everyone
using 192.168.1.x and NAT is a real pain.
> I know that IPv6 is supposed to allow every address to be publicly
> route-able but having your computers in private ranges and use NAT has
> big advantages towards security.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and NO! (*@!^&*@$ &@*^*&$@ &*@^*&@ How many
times does this have to be explained??? NAT *IS* *NOT* a @*(&^*(^@(*@
security tool. It isn't. Stop saying it is. You use *firewalls* for
security. Just block ingress traffic and you are just as well off as
you are on NAT - and odds are in your NAT configure you are doing that
already. All you do is eliminate the hacks, performance penalty, and
interoperability problems created by NAT. NAT is a *problem*, not a
solution for anything other than a deficient network protocol.
> And what about this arbitrarily chosen /64 subnet? So we're returning
> back to classfull routing?
Yes, thank goodness. No more ridiculously tedious netmasks.
> Stateless auto-configuration is a useless feature, just like APIPA. I
> much prefer DHCP and thankfully it still exists for v6.
Correct, nothing is lost, things are gained. All to the good.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
