Just fyi IPv8 was written by LLM with full on hallucinated citations and references. It isn’t being taken seriously by anyone.
It didn’t even make sense. It relies on DNS for nat and the like. Deranged networking plans from the non-mind of an LLM.
I recommend taking the time to learn IPv6 properly. It’s actually quite elegant and brings back the peer to peer, endpoint to endpoint connection ability of the old internet.
True. But pinging IPs directly should only be done as a debug step when dns / mdns does not work. Aka extremely rarely.This all being said mdns is extremely reliable on lan. It’s literally just multicast dns on lan.
On my personal home network I have never had mdns fail in 5-ish years. FQDNs yah. DNS can break. But mdns has been solid.
I see why some people can be confused though. In some distros it needs to be configured. Once you configure it though it should be rock solid.
There is no reason why an ICMP packet would be more robust than a multicast udp packet.
The traditional nomenclature is myhostname.local
Just make sure that the system firewall is configured to allow mdns. That’s the biggest issue. Once you have e that and you have mdns set up it’s good to go.
I wouldn’t even say it was a good idea. Like the end to end NAT free internet is the ideal. IPv6 was built for that.
Even if IPv8 was not slop it would reenforce the idea of nat and hierarchy.
IPv6 allows for a democratized internet where anyone can choose to self host. And anyone can connect to anyone who is self hosting.
Because of this it’s a bit more complicated. But ideology it much better than IPv8. It brings us back what made the internet great in the 90s and 2000s, but at scale.
I really like how ipv6 works; the downside is it’s way more complicated for humans to understand. But then again all of networking gets complicated fast. I still don’t really get what a CGNAT is.
How is IPv6 harder to understand? It’s just IPv4 with all the uncommon stuff stripped out and put into optional headers (which IPv4 also has), and a much longer address now written in hex.
CGNAT is just a fancy term for NAT done by a carrier. They get a special private IP address range for doing so, but fundamentally it’s still NAT.
Now IP multicast, THAT is complicated for humans to understand. Especially the whole subscriber logic.
I’m taking this as a genuine question, so I’ll answer for myself personally. My mental model of IPv4 is quite simple. A computer doesn’t have an address unless you configure one for it, or a DHCP server gives it one. If you are on the same network and there’s no firewall, knowing the ip address lets you reach the computer. The router has one public facing IP address that all your devices have to share, which is inconvenient.
In ipv6, a computer has two automatic addresses from the MAC address, a link local and a real one, but they aren’t interchangeable, and don’t always work. Instead of DCHP, there is something else that prevents ip collisions somehow, but dhcp also still exists sometimes.
In my limited experience, i can never count on reaching a device by its hostname, but if i know a local ipv4 address, that’s enough, and they’re easy to remember since only the last part really changes. With ipv6 the address is too long and incomprehensible to remember.
I love that ipv6 works better for computers, that you don’t have to worry about NAT traversal, but i don’t think it is too hard to understand why humans find using it day to day more confusing if they’re used to ipv4.
I literally just got the notifiation from Verizon today that IPV6 was now supported by their network… Ubiquiti asked me if I wanted to enable it, my response is basically not until I understand it…
Then again, it took me 20 years to really understand IPv4, so it’s likely I’m going to be decaying before I get v6. ;-)
my response is basically not until I understand it…
That was probably a good call, firewalling and (lack of) DHCP especially is quite different so just trying to use v4 concepts on v6 addresses/networks is almost a guaranteed bad time
Just fyi IPv8 was written by LLM with full on hallucinated citations and references. It isn’t being taken seriously by anyone.
It didn’t even make sense. It relies on DNS for nat and the like. Deranged networking plans from the non-mind of an LLM.
I recommend taking the time to learn IPv6 properly. It’s actually quite elegant and brings back the peer to peer, endpoint to endpoint connection ability of the old internet.
I’m okay with IPv6, if I can get a hexadecimal keypad. I know, DNS solves it to a degree, but just pumping in link-local can be a keyboard dance.
Unfortunately, my ISP doesn’t yet offer IPv6 due to PPPoE to authenticate and authorize subscribers.
Humans shouldn’t really be typing in IPs. Why not just use localhost for localhost and dns / mdns for lan machines? It’s such a nicer experience.
mdns works with link-local in the case of a private non connected lan.
Dns doesn’t always work, and seeing if you can connect via IP is often a troubleshooting step
True. But pinging IPs directly should only be done as a debug step when dns / mdns does not work. Aka extremely rarely.This all being said mdns is extremely reliable on lan. It’s literally just multicast dns on lan.
On my personal home network I have never had mdns fail in 5-ish years. FQDNs yah. DNS can break. But mdns has been solid.
I would like to know more about this mdns.
In my experience, the following are unreliable, and it’s unclear which one is supposed to work under which context:
While pinging the ipv4 address is reliable; if the device is reachable on the network, it should respond.
Happy to help.
You can find more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast_DNS
You can learn how to configure it here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Avahi
I see why some people can be confused though. In some distros it needs to be configured. Once you configure it though it should be rock solid.
There is no reason why an ICMP packet would be more robust than a multicast udp packet.
The traditional nomenclature is myhostname.local
Just make sure that the system firewall is configured to allow mdns. That’s the biggest issue. Once you have e that and you have mdns set up it’s good to go.
Oi…well that sucks ass. A good idea, badly conceptualized I guess.
I wouldn’t even say it was a good idea. Like the end to end NAT free internet is the ideal. IPv6 was built for that.
Even if IPv8 was not slop it would reenforce the idea of nat and hierarchy.
IPv6 allows for a democratized internet where anyone can choose to self host. And anyone can connect to anyone who is self hosting.
Because of this it’s a bit more complicated. But ideology it much better than IPv8. It brings us back what made the internet great in the 90s and 2000s, but at scale.
I really like how ipv6 works; the downside is it’s way more complicated for humans to understand. But then again all of networking gets complicated fast. I still don’t really get what a CGNAT is.
How is IPv6 harder to understand? It’s just IPv4 with all the uncommon stuff stripped out and put into optional headers (which IPv4 also has), and a much longer address now written in hex.
CGNAT is just a fancy term for NAT done by a carrier. They get a special private IP address range for doing so, but fundamentally it’s still NAT.
Now IP multicast, THAT is complicated for humans to understand. Especially the whole subscriber logic.
I’m taking this as a genuine question, so I’ll answer for myself personally. My mental model of IPv4 is quite simple. A computer doesn’t have an address unless you configure one for it, or a DHCP server gives it one. If you are on the same network and there’s no firewall, knowing the ip address lets you reach the computer. The router has one public facing IP address that all your devices have to share, which is inconvenient.
In ipv6, a computer has two automatic addresses from the MAC address, a link local and a real one, but they aren’t interchangeable, and don’t always work. Instead of DCHP, there is something else that prevents ip collisions somehow, but dhcp also still exists sometimes.
In my limited experience, i can never count on reaching a device by its hostname, but if i know a local ipv4 address, that’s enough, and they’re easy to remember since only the last part really changes. With ipv6 the address is too long and incomprehensible to remember.
I love that ipv6 works better for computers, that you don’t have to worry about NAT traversal, but i don’t think it is too hard to understand why humans find using it day to day more confusing if they’re used to ipv4.
Probably true…but I just don’t see it taking off…
IPv6 is now peaking over 50% of all internet traffic globally and trending up. IPv4 is today the minority of internet traffic.
In some countries like France IPv6 over 85% of all internet traffic. In Germany over 75%. USA 57% of all traffic. India 76% of all traffic.
Not a fan of Google but they keep statistics on adoption.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
I literally just got the notifiation from Verizon today that IPV6 was now supported by their network… Ubiquiti asked me if I wanted to enable it, my response is basically not until I understand it…
Then again, it took me 20 years to really understand IPv4, so it’s likely I’m going to be decaying before I get v6. ;-)
That was probably a good call, firewalling and (lack of) DHCP especially is quite different so just trying to use v4 concepts on v6 addresses/networks is almost a guaranteed bad time
Have faith in yourself. I bet you could get things in a few hours with focused study if you have a deep understanding of IPv4.
LOL…my ADHD has gotten much worse with age… “Focus” is a fond memory. ;-}
Ok. Then a week of passive absorbing at worst. You got it. IPv6 is more complicated but not that much more complicated. You already know IPv4.