• frezik
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    And we wouldn’t need any of that if we implemented IPv6.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t know about that. Technically it wouldn’t be necessary but I can see providers limiting you to a single IP instead of a /64 and needing to do it anyway, because the tech exists anyway. Or for privacy reasons. There is IPv6 NAT, after all…

      • frezik
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Most ISPs offer IPv6 right now, and they tend to hand out at least a /64. Often as much as a /54.

        RIPE strongly discourages ISPs from handing out prefixes longer than /56: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/

        I don’t see carrier grade NAT ever being used for IPv6. The extra equipment for that makes the network more expensive, less reliable, and introduces extra latency.

        One thing ISPs are doing is still handing out dynamically assigned prefixes rather than static. Self hosting is still going to be a pain.