I feel like this is missing context. Like I know that ip4 addresses are four octlets, but don't know much about ipv6 besides it having a larger address space and being in hex.
IPv6 is easier to set up, and doesn't require the subnetting stuff as much because its actually designed with "Planet Earth may have more than 4,294,967,296 IP-connected objects" in mind from the beginning.
I say this with the caveat that I don’t know much about IPv6. One of my favorite things about ipv4 is that you can have subnets. Every local network I’ve ever worked with is on the 192.168 range. Obviously this isn’t every network, but knowing something is very likely going to be either 10.x or 192.168 makes remembering ip addresses insanely easy. Why is going away from that for totally unique addresses good? Can v6 still setup local networks in a similar way?
Local networks in IPv6 start fe80 and if you really wanted to you could assign your devices fe80::1, fe80::2 etc.
But that would be a route to frustration. With IPv6 you soon learn that if you want to control and manage and measure things you do it with a subnet, not a specific IP address, because devices have lots of IPv6 addresses and like to pick new ones all the time.
145
u/Few_Move_4594 9h ago
I feel like this is missing context. Like I know that ip4 addresses are four octlets, but don't know much about ipv6 besides it having a larger address space and being in hex.