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

  • 22decembre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you have external ipv6, why not having internal too ?

    You might need to keep ipv4 internal for some time because some progams only do v4. Opposite, I believe some programs will soon start ipv6-only. So you might need to have ipv6 also on the inside, no matter what.

    • Scoopta@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My guess is because it scares people. I’ve had other people ask me about it before because they think internal IPv6 is a ridiculous concept and IPv4 just makes so much more sense and is easier to remember. I personally don’t get it but that’s my guess. Dual stack is definitely the easiest way to go tho.

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

        Definitely this. Some people say “IPv6 is complicated” just because the address is longer and uses hexadecimal. They actually know nothing about IPv6, not SLAAC or DHCPv6, not address types, or anything… They just know that it’s long and apparently that’s intimidating enough.

        It’s why you actually see people advocating for their “IPv5” solution, aka IPv4-with-2-more-octets. I swear… every month there’s someone saying that.

        Sigh.

        • Scoopta@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is interesting how we’ve got this replacement that while slow is clearly taking off and yet people are still out there trying to re-engineer IPv4 as a replacement. Does that qualify as Stockholm syndrome?