Wonder if it’s possible to have a internal ipv4 local address range that is natted to ipv6 public address on your router…

  • orangeboats@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suggest doing the opposite. Give internal hosts IPv6 and use NAT64 to enable IPv4-IPv6 communication.

    You can perfectly represent whatever IPv4 address in IPv6, but you can’t even stick the most typical IPv6 address (global unicast address, 128 bits) inside IPv4.

    • TCB13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Touché. Maybe the OP isn’t aware that IPv6 can be made as simple as IPv4 on a local network? Maybe he has IPv4 only devices?

      I believe we should simply abolish IPv4 completely. We have zero need for IPv4 and dual-stack networks are way more prone to errors and complexity.

      People usually say that IPv6 is hard and IPv6 addresses aren’t “memorable” but that’s mostly BS because with the :: aka “reduced format” they can be even simpler than IPv4 - after all fc00::1 is a valid local IPv6 address. :)

      Others might say it is dangerous without understanding how NAT isn’t necessary and how a firewall should work. Another common argument against deprecating IPv4 is that we should keep compatibility with older devices, to which I say… IPv6 support was introduced in Windows XP SP2 (2004).

      IPv6 is great, largely simply networks, make things more efficient and allows for more complex scenarios that are hard to deal with in IPv4. Multihoming, advanced load balancing, network level split DNS, direct peer-to-peer communication, totally abolishing DHCP in a usable way etc.