Today in our newest take on “older technology is better”: why NAT rules!

  • Thiakil@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It should only be needed if your ISP is brain-dead and only gives you a /64 instead of what they should be doing and also giving you a /56 or /48 with prefix delegation (I.e it should be getting both a 64 for the wan interface, and a delegation for routing)

    You router should be using that prefix and sticking just a /64 on the lan interface which it advertises appropriately (and you can route the others as you please)

    Internal ipv6 should be using site-local ipv6, and if they have internet access they would have both addresses.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      My ISP does this right (provides a /56 for routing), but unfortunately both are dynamic and change periodically. Every time I disconnect and reconnect from the internet, I get a different prefix.

      I ended up needing to have ULAs for devices where I need to know the IPv6 address on my network (e.g. my internal DNS servers).

      • Thiakil@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Indeed, that’s correct ula usage, but shouldn’t need nat rewriting. The global prefixes just need to be advertised by RA packets

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yeah I’m not using NAT, sorry for the confusion.

          My router doesn’t support RAs for a ULA range though, so I’m running radvd on my home server.

        • Thiakil@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I use openwrt on my home network which uses dnsmasq for dhcp. It can give a static suffix which just works with the global prefix on the interface and the site local / ula prefix it uses

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Note that Android doesn’t support DHCPv6, just in case you have Android devices and ever have to debug IPv6 on them.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Hurricane Electric gives me a /48.

      Site-local ipv6 would work here as well, true. But then my containers wouldnt have internet access. Kubernetes containers use Ipam with a single subnet, they can’t use SLAAC.

      • Thiakil@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Point is, you should be able to have them have both. Or stick a reverse proxy in front that can translate. Unless they’re somehow meant to be directly internet reachable the public addresses could be autogenerated

        Full disclosure though I don’t know anything about kubernetes.

        • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, I wonder if there’s any proposals to allow for multiple IPV6 addresses in Kubernetes, it would be a much better solution than NAT.

          As far as I know, it’s currently not possible. Every container/Pod receives a single IPv4 and/or IPv6 address on creation from the networking driver.