Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I've found v6 is easier to deal with in practice.

When you've got a host whose address is 192.168.2.42, but it shows up as 203.0.113.8 to internet hosts, but you had an RFC1918 clash on a few of your acquisitions so some parts of your company access it via 192.168.202.42 and other parts need 172.16.1.42 and your VPN sometimes can't reach it because some home users use 192.168.2.0/24... how is that easier than "the IP is 2001:db8:113:2::42"?

> I still do not have an intuitive feel for how many addresses or what address range a CIDR block contains

This is just lack of practice, not an issue with v6. Also, v6 subnets are basically always /64, so the answer to the question of how many addresses are in them is always who cares it's enough. I find v4 and its fiddly /27s and /21s much more of a pain (partly because, yes, I'm out of practice dealing with them).

Same deal with knowing the prefixes. 'fd' is "RFC1918", 'fe' is link-local, 'ff' is multicast. This isn't hard stuff.

> 192.x.x.x are common prefix to local networks

This is 99.6% wrong. I guess v4 isn't _that_ simple, huh?



Aside from occasional snark, I don't understand most of your comment, and certainly don't see any good points that support IPv6 over IPv4.

> This is 99.6% wrong. I guess v4 isn't _that_ simple, huh?

Apologies for not being concise enough, I thought my point would have stuck regardless... 192.168.x.x

You are correct though. Mistakes also happen with v4 and it's not simple to a laymen, but it is certainly simpler than v6.


I think v6 is simpler in practice, due to not needing NAT. If the first part of my post is difficult to understand then that serves as a good demonstration of how hard v4 is once address exhaustion and NAT enter the picture.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: