4 ms·
From what I can see, he also readily admits that IPv4 and IPv4+ hosts cannot talk to each other, or more clearly, we cannot start using the extended address spa
by maw 11y ago
From what I can see, he also readily admits that IPv4 and IPv4+ hosts cannot talk to each other, or more clearly, we cannot start using the extended address space before almost everybody has IPv4+ capable software.
I don't know whether to respond to that with "what?" or "yeah, so what?" but I'm leaning toward the former. IPv4 and IPv4+ hosts would communicate with each other, but IPv4 would only be able to communicate with the overlapping range of IPv4+.
Addresses in this range would have initially been relatively valuable but their value would be expected to decrease over time as more hosts started working over IPv4+.
I think djb was right, but obviously we're unlikely to ever find out.
- ambrice 11y ago"what"? Since you have a multiple IPv4+ hosts with the same IPv4 address, how would an IPv4 host communicate with an IPv4+ host?
- maw 11y agoThe idea of multiple IPv4+ hosts with the same IPv4 address doesn't come into it at all. (Questions of proxying in its various forms aren't really relevant.) So, to answer your question: it wouldn't.
- ambrice 11y agoWhat does proxying have to do with it? One of us is terribly misunderstanding the concept. As I understand IPv4+ concept in this article, your router gets address 1.2.3.4 then every device behind it gets 1.2.3.4.0.0.0.1, etc. That way all the routers in between don't need to be upgraded, they just get the packets to your router and don't care about the extra address bytes, and your router gets them to a particular device. Which is great for routers in the middle, but your web browser still has to use IPv4 and NAT workarounds until all the web servers are upgraded to support IPv4+.
- maw 11y agoAs I understand IPv4+ concept in this article, your router gets address 1.2.3.4 then every device behind it gets 1.2.3.4.0.0.0.1, etc. This is the bit that wasn't in djb's original article AFAIR. My take was that 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.3.4.0.0.0.1 would be the same machine -- or at least allocated to the same entity.