You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
35 points

fd00:: is the new 192.168

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

fc00::/7 are ULA (basically what RFC1918 was for IPv4) not entirely true, fc00::/8 is part of ULA, but it is not yet defined. Use fd00::/8 instead.
2001:db8::/32 is for documentation purposes

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

IMO they shouldn’t have allowed ULA as part of the standard. There’s no good reason for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I use ULA prefixes to ensure the management interfaces of my devices don’t leak via public routes.

It’s one of the unique parts of the standard IPv6 stack not back ported to IPv4, that an interface on any host can be configured with multiple addresses. It permits functional isolation with the default routing logic.

IPv6 is far from perfect, but the majority of the arguments I’ve seen against deploying it are a mixture of laziness, wilful ignorance, and terminal incuriosity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah there is: not breaking all your internal traffic when the wan link goes down and you lose your prefix.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You’re not supposed to use fc00::/8, so it’s just the fd00::/8 half that’s the new ULA.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Didn’t know that, thanks. Luckily, I’ve only ever used fd00::/8
Source btw: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address#Definition

permalink
report
parent
reply

Programmer Humor

!programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

Create post

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

  • Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
  • No NSFW content.
  • Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

Community stats

  • 4.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 848

    Posts

  • 8.3K

    Comments

Community moderators