ItzTrain
Michael@train I think the huge curve would be part of the fun! I've also got plans to do it (someday...).
Although, with your track record for network changes in the homelab...😜
RAGSdale83@train the only people I’ve seen include it were those that needed experience for a work project. Beyond that, and maybe boredom, there is no “need” for ipv6 right now
Sifr Moja@RAGSdale83 @train no "need" but resolves so many problems. It simplifies your network.
👻 scary ipv6-only networks 👻@RAGSdale83 @train leave it to a “cloud engineer” to see no need for ipv6 👀
@RAGSdale83 @noipv6 Shit i don't see the need for it either!! It's been over a decade and not even half of the internet has it enabled.. Enough so that I still need to use ipv4 to browse everyday things.. I'm more interested in learning the other benefits of 40 quadrilion ip's or whatever.
@RAGSdale83 @train that’s alot of words for “i’m not interested in future-proofing my career” 🤷🏻
exponentialverteilt
Rixv6 is a great learning tool in a homelab because it allows for interesting routing typologies to be created. It's also amazing if you need to spin up a new prefix inside an existing one you just need to set the routes for the next hop and you're essentially good to go.
No worrying about NAT and the things that break around it when you add more layers of NAT.
@eleix @exponentialverteilt I can see that benefit, but can you expand on the "Routing typologies" that are different that we see in the IPv4 world. It can't just be nat that makes this thing better.
I can certainly try.
In IPv6 I can create a routing topology that can nest almost infinitely without breaking end-to-end connectivity. Note: That is definitely not exclusive to IPv6 and can be done in V4 but would be much more "expensive".
I can take an unused /64, set the next hop address at my core to point to the next "router" in the chain. You would be able to see that router in the traceroute even if it's a PC. Unlike if it was done with NAT.
@eleix @exponentialverteilt I play a network guy on TV, so forgive me.. Couldn't i do that anyway in the same iv4 way. Just add another network somewhere and point the router that knows about that ( using BGP probably) in the core? In ipv6 case, it's just another IP that a router knows about, instead of the routers having to do any translations and keeping that connection together?
@train It's far easier to understand than V4. People are simply used to V4. The benefits are huge! No broadcast, no need for DHCP, no NAT, etc.
chrysn@chrysn That's the shitty part because so much of the internet still has ipv4 and probably will be that way for a while ( it's been what a decade). You'll need to dual stack it and at that point, just single stack it right!!! Maybe not.
@train At least on such small devices you can't reasonably afford to run dual stack (we're talking about 100KiB flash), and saves precious air time by . It practically always has a more powerful router at some point that can provision v6 tunneling (possibly including v4 ingress proxying) to talk to non-local peers – that's just tedious to set up, and instead works out of the box on modern networks.
OldGuySelfHosting@train No. Absolutely.