• BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    No shit.

    But a private Lan will never need it.

    There are 4 billion+ possible IP v4 addresses, nearly 600 million in the current private range.

    Show me a private network with 600 million devices.

    There’s no reason a device that doesn’t have a direct internet connection needs IP6.

    • Nighed@sffa.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Ideally, using just IP6 would be simpler, as every device gets a global address. Then you don’t need to mess with NAT, port forwarding and all that bullshit. Every device having multiple addresses just complicates things.

    • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      A device on your private IPv4 network can send packets directly to 104.21.36.127 via NAT. How will it send packets to 2606:4700:3033::6815:247f? There’s not enough space in the IPv4 header.