4 ms·

I agree about getaddrinfo(). Applications should have specified AF_INET to gethostbyname() and then when updating to getaddrinfo(), handle ipv6 correctly or ski

I agree about getaddrinfo(). Applications should have specified AF_INET to gethostbyname() and then when updating to getaddrinfo(), handle ipv6 correctly or skip it. The IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses thing is a terrible idea that ends up turned off everywhere it makes a difference. Like all of these "transition" ideas, it tries to help, but it just hurts by causing admins/ops/devs to just make sure ipv6 is off everywhere they run into it. If all IPv6 was just opt-in everywhere, we wouldn't need all significant applications to detect and work-around broken ipv6 (in the local network, in the ISP, in the server, in the peer application). If IPv6 was only explicitly enabled, and fully consciously handled when it was, then practically everything would have opted into IPv6 years ago. As it is, things started getting IPv6 support around 2005/2006, and then disabling it around 2007/2008 because it was fake/broken ipv6 in too many places (windows teredo, 6in4, etc). OS X had to disable IPv6 in one release and then re-enable after implementing happy-eyeballs in everything. Firefox had to do that. I know about these cases in particular, but I bet all significant network applications had to have a bunch of "detect broken IPv6" code added. Major websites had to disable IPv6 on their main domains (and sometimes added an "ipv6." subdomain). The reason was that some people had broken IPv6 and their computer would try to use it to access their site and fail (but other ipv4 only websites worked). Things are getting better now, but it was a 10 year set-back. So much time and effort could have been saved if people with good-intentions didn't add automagic transition technologies and just waited for IPv6 to be explicitly added on both ends.

wfunction 9y ago
Is it fair to say IPv6 has been generally a failure? Or is it too early for that?
- splitrocket 9y ago
  I'd say this growth curve looks healthy and robust to me: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
  - wfunction 9y ago
    Yeah you're right, it certainly does. I would be curious if it goes mainstream enough to replace IPv4 in the foreseeable future though, which was its intention.
    - rnxrx 9y ago
      It's been quite mainstream in certain contexts and geographies for a number of years now. As an example - most handsets on modern LTE (and newer) networks have been strong-majority v6 for quite a while. The fact that this hasn't been obvious is an argument in favor of v6's success.
      - wfunction 9y ago
        Hah, I didn't know precisely because in my case I've always seen an IPv4 address on mobile...
      - topranks 9y ago
        I'm not sure that's the case. Certainly not in Europe anyway, although it is seeing wider adoption now (particularly 464XLAT based solutions).
    - tialaramex 9y ago
      The expectation is that networks will switch to IPv6 only internally, and eventually the IPv4-only remainder of the Internet decays until it's no longer an "IPv4 Internet" but just a handful of separate IPv4 networks that are connected to the (now IPv6 only) Internet by protocol converters. Some US corporations did this already, rather than fuss with being "dual stack" and potentially introducing new IPv4-only services or systems, they switched wholesale to IPv6 and add converters at the edges. By choosing to do this they get most of the benefits of a future IPv6-only Internet today. For example, numbering internally is a breeze, they can auto-number almost everything because the address space is so vast there is no need to "plan" any of it. Lots of other US corporations are still IPv4-only, indeed that's why the Google graph earlier has a distinct weekday vs weekends / holidays step change in it. At home a very large proportion of people in industrialised countries have IPv6, major ISPs supply it, common household routers understand how to use it, every modern OS groks it. But at work IPv6 is often disabled by policy, in favour of cumbersome IPv4 because that works and changing things at work is forbidden.
- toyg 9y ago
  It's now embedded in huge chunks of internet so I wouldn't call it a failure. The transition could and should have been handled better, and the specification has its flaws (too machine-oriented) which unfortunately will never be fixed, but it's here to stay.
- gm 9y ago
  All that's needed is for Google to make it factor in search ranking and you can bet that we'll all be finally reading up on ipv6 and how to make it work well on our servers, and testing the hell out of it :-)
- ploxiln 9y ago
  It's "too needed to fail" - and there's nothing to supplant it. And it's finally starting to catch on, 10 years late: Google's primary web domains, Facebook, AWS, Comcast and Time Warner cable internet in the US, most LTE cell service in the US.
pas 9y ago
Transition mechanisms suffer from the same problem as the upgrade to ipv6, the need for an upgrade. So in this sense all were doomed to fail. Remarkably the CGN devices are actually the best practical idea for this. Fake IPv4 addresses for the dumb ossified clients and that's it. If something important enough for the end user doesn't work, they'll finally upgrade.

wfunction 9y ago

Is it fair to say IPv6 has been generally a failure? Or is it too early for that?

splitrocket 9y ago
I'd say this growth curve looks healthy and robust to me: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- wfunction 9y ago
  Yeah you're right, it certainly does. I would be curious if it goes mainstream enough to replace IPv4 in the foreseeable future though, which was its intention.
  - rnxrx 9y ago
    It's been quite mainstream in certain contexts and geographies for a number of years now. As an example - most handsets on modern LTE (and newer) networks have been strong-majority v6 for quite a while. The fact that this hasn't been obvious is an argument in favor of v6's success.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      Hah, I didn't know precisely because in my case I've always seen an IPv4 address on mobile...
    - topranks 9y ago
      I'm not sure that's the case. Certainly not in Europe anyway, although it is seeing wider adoption now (particularly 464XLAT based solutions).
  - tialaramex 9y ago
    The expectation is that networks will switch to IPv6 only internally, and eventually the IPv4-only remainder of the Internet decays until it's no longer an "IPv4 Internet" but just a handful of separate IPv4 networks that are connected to the (now IPv6 only) Internet by protocol converters. Some US corporations did this already, rather than fuss with being "dual stack" and potentially introducing new IPv4-only services or systems, they switched wholesale to IPv6 and add converters at the edges. By choosing to do this they get most of the benefits of a future IPv6-only Internet today. For example, numbering internally is a breeze, they can auto-number almost everything because the address space is so vast there is no need to "plan" any of it. Lots of other US corporations are still IPv4-only, indeed that's why the Google graph earlier has a distinct weekday vs weekends / holidays step change in it. At home a very large proportion of people in industrialised countries have IPv6, major ISPs supply it, common household routers understand how to use it, every modern OS groks it. But at work IPv6 is often disabled by policy, in favour of cumbersome IPv4 because that works and changing things at work is forbidden.
toyg 9y ago
It's now embedded in huge chunks of internet so I wouldn't call it a failure. The transition could and should have been handled better, and the specification has its flaws (too machine-oriented) which unfortunately will never be fixed, but it's here to stay.
gm 9y ago
All that's needed is for Google to make it factor in search ranking and you can bet that we'll all be finally reading up on ipv6 and how to make it work well on our servers, and testing the hell out of it :-)
ploxiln 9y ago
It's "too needed to fail" - and there's nothing to supplant it. And it's finally starting to catch on, 10 years late: Google's primary web domains, Facebook, AWS, Comcast and Time Warner cable internet in the US, most LTE cell service in the US.

pas 9y ago

Transition mechanisms suffer from the same problem as the upgrade to ipv6, the need for an upgrade. So in this sense all were doomed to fail. Remarkably the CGN devices are actually the best practical idea for this. Fake IPv4 addresses for the dumb ossified clients and that's it. If something important enough for the end user doesn't work, they'll finally upgrade.