You shouldn’t have to?? Maybe you might need to change the mask in your firewall settings if the ipv6 allocation block size changes but that should be it.
You should only assign static ipv6 to servers, in theory you could just define a host id and use a prefix too. But, most people at home really aren't running enough servers to make that worthwhile. Everything else should just pick up new addresses fine using ND.
Will the app for the smart thermostat be updated three years from now and still be useful? If it was instead a web server app on a routable IP, it wouldn’t matter provided they didn’t fuck up the authentication and access control.
Yeah, but they're not. That's the modern world. But also even if it was a web server there's usually ways to advertise the IP for the app to connect to. I've seen other stuff do that. So getting an IP is easy. Once the app knows the IP and if you really want to allow connections from outside to your IOT devices (I wouldn't) it could remember the IP and allow that.
You really don't need to give a fixed IP to everything. I think I've given 1 or 2 things fixed IPv6 IPs. Everything else is fine with what it assigns itself.
The other app off the top of my head is VoIP. You should be able to “dial” a number directly. Most solutions go through the company’s data center first in order to pierce through NAT. Which makes it more expensive, less reliable, slower, and more susceptible to snooping.
There’s a “if you build it, they will come” effect here. Once you can address hosts directly, a whole bunch of things become better, and new ideas that were infeasible are now feasible. They don’t exist now because they can’t.
You can use ULAs (unique local addresses) or that purpose. Your devices can have a ULA IPv6 address that’s constant, and a public IPv6 that changes. Both can be assigned using SLAAC (no manual config required).
I do this because the /56 IPv6 range provided by my ISP is dynamic, and periodically changes.
Yes but you’d still be performing NAT. It’s at least 1:1.
You’ll need to deal with firewall rules regardless, and drop IPs into policies. IPv6 doesn’t remove any of those chores but gets rid of having to maintain tables to deal with many-to-one NAT.
If you use a single shared public ip then you’re using some amount of address translation
This is practically never the case with IPv6. Usually, each device gets its own public IP. This is how the IPv4 internet used to work in the old days (one IP = one device), and it solves so many problems. No need for NAT traversal since there’s no NAT. No need for split horizon DNS since the same IP works both inside and outside your network.
There’s still a firewall on the router, of course.
At least that’s how I understand ipv4 and I don’t think ipv6 is much different.
With IPv6, each network device can have multiple IPs. If you have an internal IP for whatever reason, it’s in addition to your public IP, not instead of it.
IPs are often allocated using SLAAC (stateless address auto config). The router tells the client "I have a network you can use; its IP range is 2001:whatever/64, and the client auto-generates an IP in that range, either based on the MAC address (always the same) or random, depending on if privacy extensions are enabled - usually on for client systems and off for servers.
Just like ipv4 though, you wouldn’t use external addresses internally because your external IPs might change, such as when moving between ISPs. You would NAT a hosts external address to its internal address.
your external IPs might change, such as when moving between ISPs
This is true
You would NAT a hosts external address to its internal address.
This is usually not true.
If you’re worried about your external IP changing (like if you’re hosting a server on it), you’d solve it the same way you solve it with IPv4: Using dynamic DNS. The main difference is that you run the DDNS client on the computer rather than the router. If there’s multiple systems you want to be able to access externally, you’d habe multiple DDNS hostnames.
There’s no translation between them. With IPv6, one network interface can have multiple IPs. A ULA (internal IP) is only used on your local network. Any internet-connected devices will also have a public IPv6 address.
ULAs aren’t too common. A lot of IPv6-enabled systems only have one IP: The private one.
Hah. But to be fair, ATM did have a specific use that it worked great for. That is the move to digital voice circuits. The small fixed cell size and built in QoS meant that if you had a fixed line size you could fit X voice channels, and they would all be extremely low latency and share the bandwidth fairly. You didn't need to buffer beyond one cell of data and you didn't need to include overhead beyond the cell headers.
ATM was designed to handle the "future" or digital network needs. But, the immediate use was about voice frames and that likely dictated a lot of the design I'd expect.
Had someone verify that wifi was working because he could see his neighbors’ networks. Airplane Mode was enabled. Dunno what he thought he saw.
Same thing with a colleague. The guy told him that he was definitely connected to wifi. It took a lot of probing to confirm that wasn’t true.
Some people just can’t provide valid feedback nor follow simple instructions. I kinda feel like those individuals shouldn’t be allowed to use computers to do their jobs. If you can’t master just pass the basics, sorry. Here’s a pencil and a pad of paper. You can either work the longer way or you can consciously put in the effort to learn this stuff enough for us to help you when you need it.
My own father, who had a doctorate in mechanical engineering: “Now click the Apple menu.” “What’s that?” “It’s the menu that’s an Apple logo in the top left corner of the screen.” “I don’t have that.” “Yes, you definitely have that.” “No, I don’… oh there it is.”
I’m not calling anyone stupid. More that I’m saying people convince themselves that they can’t learn and then shut down.
I mean in fairness to the first one, on most systems it is possible to turn wifi back on without turning off airplane mode (there is in-flight wifi after all)
I think that’s the trick, right? 1% of a perfectly normal person’s attention looks a lot like a really dumb person. This certainly goes for tech, but also for any number of other fields.
Insightful. I was commenting about a VIP wrt a power dialog on a mobile device and posited that the reason they didn’t understand a thing must be that they don’t read before dismissing it. I would even say that’s half of 1% of their attention and that makes complete sense. The other 99.5% is focused on the things they consider more important.
Had they read the message, it would have saved them a lot of time waiting for the solution that would have been near instantaneous otherwise. But their 0.5% is more important to them than your 99.5%. Hopefully they’re really good at bringing money into the company, because their ability to save labor money for the company is abysmal.
Hopefully they’re really good at bringing money into the company, because their ability to save labor money for the company is abysmal.
I was asked to drive 80m to reboot a device when I’d said the previous day that rebooting would fix it (it was a phone; there’s almost no real troubleshooting on the platform). I kept quiet about how financially irresponsible the request was. When I got there, the phone was already turned off for other reasons. At least I got to listen to podcasts while I drove there and back.
I’m aware that he probably meant miles, but he still used the wrong abbreviation (should have been mi). Gotta be careful about that kind of thing, although I’m not sure what the tech anecdote equivalent of the Mars Climate Orbiter would be. Someone taking it too seriously, like I’m doing here, probably. 😅
kinda feel like those individuals shouldn’t be allowed to use computers to do their jobs. If you can’t master just pass the basics, sorry. Here’s a pencil and a pad of paper.
My wife had her HR rep get pissed at her just yesterday for sending an email to her boss and other higher-ups asking why assistant managers at her company can’t use the computers theyre on all day properly. She had asked for a screenshot of something so she could see what the other person was seeing and they replied with “I can’t do that idk how” and thought that was acceptable?
Luckily the other higher ups told HR to shut up and that she was only mad because it’s her job to ensure basic computer literacy and she clearly didn’t.
People 100% get into the mindset that “well, I already know the basics, so anything I don’t know is advanced user shit so I can’t learn it” and it’s infuriating
Wow. It’s so easy to get that info from a web search that I’d argue that the response is evidence of the person not doing their job. Good on your wife for calling bullshit and the same for the higher ups who defended her position.
I’m enjoying the idea of someone looking at the picture, looking at their cords, looking at the plugs, and then working this out as a solution rather than sending a picture of the plug end and port and asking for clarification.
Like this person probably felt really stupid needing to sort out what’s going on, because it was just unclear, and I enjoy where they ended up all the same. It’s totally wrong, but it’s creative problem solving for sure.
To be slightly fair to the tech illiterate, there’s no sfp transceiver specified or shown in the picture… how the hell is someone supposed to plug that in?
I think this really comes down to whether the employee was IT (and to an extent part of the network team). If so, I'd say there's a lot of questions to be answered here. If not, there's also a lot of questions to be answered but not from that employee :P
As a programmer, I don't even know what we're looking at. A switch, I would guess, but I haven't seen hardware in years. In any case wouldn't "port 21 <bottom|top>" been better?
Yeah, I had never seen a connector that looks anything like that, but I figured I was just behind the times (since it didn't look like Ethernet plugged into it to me)
Its not new tech but you’d most likely only see this in a datacenter or buildings with 10 Gb connections as this is fiber optic cabling. One would need an SFP to actually connect it to the port however. Also the tips of the fiber were probably scratched when installing it into the vent holes so the whole cable will probably be replaced and then fixed, so there are multiple failures here.
a tech illiterate old friend of mine in his 60s got tasked with changing his simcard for new one. But the network just didn’t appear. Long story short after 3 hrs of headbashing I asked him to send me the photo of simcard itself
I used to work at a phone repair shop. The amount of people that put Sim cards in their brand new phone without the tray. We would have to take the phones apart to get their Sim cards out.
Isn’t the “standard” sim card in you pic actually mini-sim? While the standard one is credit card-sized? I think I have a phone somewhere that takes a credit card sized sim actually.
programmer_humor
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.