Re: Verison IPv6 -- I want to stick with IPv4 (was Re: ipv6: static ipv6 address with dynamic network address possible?)

[Tim Woodall <debianuser@woodall.me.uk>]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022, David Wright wrote:

> On Sun 14 Aug 2022 at 05:35:17 (+0000), Marco wrote:
> > Am 13. Aug 2022, um 23:42:17 Uhr schrieb David Wright:
> >
> > > AFAICT the rest of your post is concerned with global IPv6 addresses
> > > rather than local (ULA) ones, which is why the prefix for the home
> > > LAN has to be given to you rather than generated/assigned by yourself.
> >
> > It is possible to use an additional ULA at home to address computers.
> > This ULA can be taken to a new provider because it is only valid inside
> > your network - not on the internet.
>
> Sure, and if Curt had quoted two paragraphs about ULAs instead,
> I would have pointed out that the user-generated pseudorandom
> global ID within them means that they too are unlike local
> IPv4 addresses, ie not fundamentally identical.
>
> A consequence of IPv6 ULAs having a global ID is that it should be
> straightforward to merge a number of local sites with independently
> assigned addresses, without causing any collisions.
>
> Perhaps that clarifies what I took from Curt's use of the term
> "fundamentally identical" with respect to IPv4 local addresses.

Isn't the danger here that everybody starts using fd00::/64. Even for
ipv4, the odds of two sets of private addresses colliding should have
been small...

I know there's an RFC for avoiding this but I'll be pleasantly surprised
if it's widely followed as ipv6 starts taking over the bulk of internet
traffic for everything.