| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 56:56:22 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Files: | 1,025 |
| Messages: | 90,832 |
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected
to the Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration
only includes IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require
it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
I suppose that since the vast majority of GNU/Linux users depend
on a distro and that since most distros automatically enable
IPv6 the answer is that most users have IPv6 enabled whether they
need it or not.
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected
to the Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration
only includes IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require
it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
I suppose that since the vast majority of GNU/Linux users depend
on a distro and that since most distros automatically enable
IPv6 the answer is that most users have IPv6 enabled whether they
need it or not.
On Thu, 15 May 2025 18:42:47 +0000, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks>
wrote:
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected
to the Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration
only includes IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require
it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
I suppose that since the vast majority of GNU/Linux users depend
on a distro and that since most distros automatically enable
IPv6 the answer is that most users have IPv6 enabled whether they
need it or not.
IPv4 only on my Linux
[]'s
Why the IPx6 hatred?
On Thu, 15 May 2025 21:01:16 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Why the IPx6 hatred?
You can remember 192.168.1.2. Good luck with fe80::261:5f21:d38a:aa02.
Would you like to predict the IPv6 address of 192.168.1.3?
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.I make it a point to enable IPv6 on my home network as well as
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
Why? Because I think it's time to leave IPv4 behind. There aren't enough
IPv4 addresses to go around for everyone,
On Thu, 15 May 2025 21:01:16 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Why the IPx6 hatred?
You can remember 192.168.1.2. Good luck with fe80::261:5f21:d38a:aa02.
Would you like to predict the IPv6 address of 192.168.1.3?
On 2025-05-15 21:20, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 21:01:16 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Why the IPx6 hatred?
You can remember 192.168.1.2. Good luck with fe80::261:5f21:d38a:aa02.
Would you like to predict the IPv6 address of 192.168.1.3?
Good point.
Den 2025-05-16 kl. 03:20, skrev rbowman:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 21:01:16 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:Yes, remembering one IPv4 address is easy. Unfortunately, many have to
Why the IPx6 hatred?
You can remember 192.168.1.2. Good luck with fe80::261:5f21:d38a:aa02.
Would you like to predict the IPv6 address of 192.168.1.3?
deal with 100s, sometimes 1000s of hosts, and remembering them all is impossible. Heck, I even have trouble remembering the IP addresses oft
he ~100 devices on my home LAN. This is why we have DNS.
Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected
to the Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration
only includes IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require
it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
That is a stupid idea.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
North America is cursed with ample IPv4 resources. Not all continents
have that "luxury" of not being forced off an obsolete proto that
needs crutches to limp.
On Thu, 15 May 2025 21:01:16 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Why the IPx6 hatred?
You can remember 192.168.1.2. Good luck with fe80::261:5f21:d38a:aa02.
Would you like to predict the IPv6 address of 192.168.1.3?
Considering all our clients were on Windows LANs using IPv4 that wouldn't have worked anyway.
Le 16-05-2025, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> a écrit :
Considering all our clients were on Windows LANs using IPv4 that
wouldn't have worked anyway.
Yes, that's the real issue. As there isn't enough IPv4, you need to NAT
them to be able to forward them. As you can have any distinct IPv6 you
want, you don't need artificial way to have more adresses than
available. So the old way doesn't work anymore, but it's useless. Now, needing to have the old way and the new way at the same time is
difficult. I can understand it. But it doesn't mean the new way is bad.
What for? I don't remember any IP address, and I don't need to. I'll tel
you a secret: it's what DNS are used for. To avoid remembering IP
addresses.
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected
to the Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration
only includes IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require
it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
True, but it's not a problem in my local WiFi network. I suppose I could
put the fours or five machines in the hosts file. At work there is DNS so using host names work but at times it's handy to know what subnet a
machine is on. If you can do that from a IPv6 address I've never figured
it out.
On 16 May 2025 21:18:17 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 16-05-2025, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> a écrit :
Considering all our clients were on Windows LANs using IPv4 that
wouldn't have worked anyway.
Yes, that's the real issue. As there isn't enough IPv4, you need to NAT
them to be able to forward them. As you can have any distinct IPv6 you
want, you don't need artificial way to have more adresses than
available. So the old way doesn't work anymore, but it's useless. Now,
needing to have the old way and the new way at the same time is
difficult. I can understand it. But it doesn't mean the new way is bad.
The new way isn't bad.
Re-configuring everything to use the new way is so
painful it will not happen until there is no other choice.
<snip>
Going to IPv6 sounds good by there's a hell of a lot of technical debt.
That I can understand. Now, if Windows is still unable to manage IPv6,
it's pretty bad. When we speak about the new way with IPv6, we are
speaking about something that exist since something like thirty years.
In the computer world, it's not new.
rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<snip>
Going to IPv6 sounds good by there's a hell of a lot of technical debt.
$ ping www.google.com PING www.google.com (2607:f8b0:4002:c1b::68) 56
data bytes 64 bytes from yt-in-f104.1e100.net (2607:f8b0:4002:c1b::68): icmp_seq=1 ttl=106 time=14.3 ms
. . .
The traceroute is also all IPv6 on this box.
Same for www.microsoft.com.
For github.com, on the other hand, it is IPv4.
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected to the Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration only includes IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
I suppose that since the vast majority of GNU/Linux users depend on a
distro and that since most distros automatically enable IPv6 the answer
is that most users have IPv6 enabled whether they need it or not.
On Thu, 15 May 2025 18:42:47 +0000, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote in <pan$e6d88$f019cb49$2e3cccf9$253bfbf1@linux.rocks>:
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected to the
Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration only includes
IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
I suppose that since the vast majority of GNU/Linux users depend on a
distro and that since most distros automatically enable IPv6 the answer
is that most users have IPv6 enabled whether they need it or not.
(It's considered good netiquette to announce a followup-to when
crossposting. Please consider doing that in the future.)
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected
to the Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration
only includes IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require
it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
I suppose that since the vast majority of GNU/Linux users depend
on a distro and that since most distros automatically enable
IPv6 the answer is that most users have IPv6 enabled whether they
need it or not.
IPv6 is the future.
vallor wrote:
of course there is you have to know how to post in usenet
<snip>