logoalt Hacker News

brk • today at 2:17 PM • 3 replies • view on HN

But it is really about more than just the available pool of addresses.

Much of the IPv6 rollout challenges have been centered around routing and security. It's great that I can personally have (in theory) more IP addresses than I would ever practically need (and I am saying this as someone with 200 IP endpoints just in my house), but if I can't easily manage and control access much of the theoretical benefit goes away.

IMO, IPv6 solved the address pool size part of the issue, but it made managing the v4 to v6 transition very painful.


Replies

throw0101c • today at 3:51 PM

> IMO, IPv6 solved the address pool size part of the issue, but it made managing the v4 to v6 transition very painful.

There is no easy way to transition from IPv4 to any kind of IPng; see my other comment:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50288091

cowlevel • today at 5:29 PM

You can still control access. Most home routers have firewalls that work a lot like V4 port forwarding except they don't have to maintain NAT tables or use as much CPU .

drivevx375 • today at 2:18 PM

[dead]