I apologise off the bat if this question is too basic to belong in this group. Perhaps it can be moved elsewhere if that's the case, or I can be directed to another SE site.
With IPv4 I have long been aware that
220.127.116.11 is probably assigned to the same owner as
18.104.22.168, and the ownership of contiguous ranges is easy to determine in the WHOIS.
How can I determine the same information from IPv6 addresses?
I note the following based on observation of these two groups of IP addresses that I'm convinced are related (within each group) based on similar traffic patterns:
The second and fourth groupings are all the same (vertically, across the whole group), and horizontally (i.e., within each IP address) the third and fifth groupings are the same as each other.
What does this tell me about how these IP addresses are related, in the same way that I can deduce from the the IPv4 example in my second paragraph? More specifically, if I'm trying to use ip6tables to block malicious traffic and I'm not terribly concerned about collateral damage from blocking innocent IP addresses, how can I do the equivalent of blocking
22.214.171.124/24 based on knowing that I want to block all traffic connected to
2002:b9ea:d9d2::b9ea:d9d2, for example?
As much as I'd love to take the time to understand IPv6 thoroughly, I don't have the time or the absolute need, so I'm not asking anyone to explain the theory (that I can read elsewhere), the why's and the how's but just enough information at this point to manage traffic to my machine.
I'm struggling to understand why a simple question has ignited heated debate, frustration (or anger), and assumptions (some of which are contrary to what I've plainly stated in the question). My question could have actually ended at my first bolded sentence above, and been complete as far as I'm concerned. Anything I add at this point will just be redundant, and participating further in the two chats that have been created is pointless.
Zac67's answer was the most useful/practical (thanks, Zac), but it doesn't actually answer the question. Ron's answer (which has somehow risen above Zac's despite [at the time of writing] having the same number of up-votes) completely misses the point ... as technically correct as all of his information may be. Sorry Ron.
So I can't accept either answer as neither "solved [my] problem or was the most helpful in finding [a] solution". I'll leave it as is, although I suppose the "hold" means that nobody will ever be able to answer it. That's not my call though.
Thanks guys. (That's serious, not sarcastic. The process did broaden my understanding slightly.)