▲ 994 ▼ GoOn (programming.dev) submitted 2 years ago by mac@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev 103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) So add two more octets: Moat companies will still just use something like 10.0.13.37.0.1 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 0xD@infosec.pub 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) IPv6 is not made with internal networks in mind lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dan@upvote.au 1 point 2 years ago You can use a ULA if you want to. That's essentially the IPv6 equivalent of a private IP. Why though? Having the same IP for both internal and external solves a bunch of issues. For example, you don't need to use split horizon DNS any more (which is where a host name has a different IP on your internal network vs on the internet). You just need to ensure your firewalls are set up properly, which you should do anyways. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoy@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Never claimed it was, please quote me where I said as much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, you used the 10.xx private IP as an example. Why wouldn’t they assume you were referring to internal networks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoy@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought it was pretty clear with me adding 13.37 that I was making a joke, the earlier post spoke about how just adding one octet would still be too few addresses, so I joked about adding one more octet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I’m only pointing out why the other poster would make the assumption you were referring to an internal network. Do with it what you will. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) IPv6 is not made with internal networks in mind lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dan@upvote.au 1 point 2 years ago You can use a ULA if you want to. That's essentially the IPv6 equivalent of a private IP. Why though? Having the same IP for both internal and external solves a bunch of issues. For example, you don't need to use split horizon DNS any more (which is where a host name has a different IP on your internal network vs on the internet). You just need to ensure your firewalls are set up properly, which you should do anyways. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoy@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Never claimed it was, please quote me where I said as much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, you used the 10.xx private IP as an example. Why wouldn’t they assume you were referring to internal networks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoy@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought it was pretty clear with me adding 13.37 that I was making a joke, the earlier post spoke about how just adding one octet would still be too few addresses, so I joked about adding one more octet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I’m only pointing out why the other poster would make the assumption you were referring to an internal network. Do with it what you will. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dan@upvote.au 1 point 2 years ago You can use a ULA if you want to. That's essentially the IPv6 equivalent of a private IP. Why though? Having the same IP for both internal and external solves a bunch of issues. For example, you don't need to use split horizon DNS any more (which is where a host name has a different IP on your internal network vs on the internet). You just need to ensure your firewalls are set up properly, which you should do anyways. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Never claimed it was, please quote me where I said as much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, you used the 10.xx private IP as an example. Why wouldn’t they assume you were referring to internal networks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoy@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought it was pretty clear with me adding 13.37 that I was making a joke, the earlier post spoke about how just adding one octet would still be too few addresses, so I joked about adding one more octet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I’m only pointing out why the other poster would make the assumption you were referring to an internal network. Do with it what you will. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) My dude, you used the 10.xx private IP as an example. Why wouldn’t they assume you were referring to internal networks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoy@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought it was pretty clear with me adding 13.37 that I was making a joke, the earlier post spoke about how just adding one octet would still be too few addresses, so I joked about adding one more octet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I’m only pointing out why the other poster would make the assumption you were referring to an internal network. Do with it what you will. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought it was pretty clear with me adding 13.37 that I was making a joke, the earlier post spoke about how just adding one octet would still be too few addresses, so I joked about adding one more octet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I’m only pointing out why the other poster would make the assumption you were referring to an internal network. Do with it what you will. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I’m only pointing out why the other poster would make the assumption you were referring to an internal network. Do with it what you will. permalink fedilink source parent