6 ms·

... which is what all those people say over and over who don't have the slightest clue how one could possibly build a system that has an "easier or more rewardi

... which is what all those people say over and over who don't have the slightest clue how one could possibly build a system that has an "easier or more rewarding jump". It's always just a completely unsubstantiated "it should have been easier" (when nothing about it is actually difficult) and "it should simply have been backwards compatible" (with no word about how this inherent impossibility should have been accomplished).

protomyth 8y ago
Every criticism of IPv6 is downvoted into oblivion, but it doesn't change the fact that great technology is adopted by the target audience quickly if there is this much effort behind it. Where IPv6 hasn't been because it is painful and doesn't make things easier for the folks who have to implement it. It is difficult, and it is different, and they did a poor job of dealing with the conversion from how IPv4 is used (NAT). Sun spent money on Java and got a huge adoption because it solved some serious problems for C++. The amount of broken IPv6 code should have been a clue.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  So, you are doing exactly what I said: You say it should have been easier and (more) backwards compatible. With absolutely no word about how that could possibly have been done, nor really even about what the supposed problems actually are, other than a vague "difficult and different". Absolutely nothing of substance. Also, what broken IPv6 code?
  - protomyth 8y ago
    So, you are doing exactly what I said: You say it should have been easier and (more) backwards compatible. With absolutely no word about how that could possibly have been done, nor really even about what the supposed problems actually are, other than a vague "difficult and different". Absolutely nothing of substance. No, you aren't getting it. The "supposed problems" start with most networks using NAT and a real lack of conversion or easy bridge strategy. Are you actually saying a network of any size is easily converted to IPv6 with all services coming up fine? Its work and utter disdain for the folks who have to do the work just adds to the problem. They built a second system with all the problems of feature creep when what we needed was some more address space. Also, what broken IPv6 code? Check the Windows 10 Spring Creators Update for the latest examples, but a simple search on broken IPv6 code would have yielded the results.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      NAT is not something that should be preserved, it is 100% a hack that fundamentally breaks the nature of ipv4 and introduces a shitload of statefulness in an otherwise stateless protocol. You can achieve (effectively) identical security semantics with a network firewall, NAT is not something that should be propagated forward. How about some specifics, rather than rhetorical noise about HOW exactly do you propose that converting any network should have been easier. No matter what it would involve upgrading every network service, and every endpoint. This problem is not avoidable, if it was we could just use the same mechanism to make ipv4 last longer.
      - protomyth 8y ago
        Regardless of your feelings on NAT, it exists, its deployed, and it needs to be part of the conversation from the start. If you want people to move off NAT, then it really needed to be gradual. Look at Perl 5 to 6 for how bad this stuff can go (heck, even Python 2 -> 3 was painful). How about you add the additional 96-bits to the protocol (why 128-bits - that's boil the ocean numbers) and then the protocol sees all the 0.0.0.0 numbers as a short cut for a standard 32-bit range (I supposed with bits above and below for the eventual address expansion) while the : notation is the real full address. Then my day one experience is install the new software that is 128-bit aware and leave all my configs alone since I already have been assigned those in the IPv4 address space. Now we can do some phase 2 to get rid of the evil NAT and clean other clean up. There are a lot of much smarter people than myself, and I cannot believe someone didn't have a great suggestion to cause a minimum impact on all the folks running systems in the field. I hate burn the bridges system conversion. holy heck, you edit this one, glad I waited
        throwaway2048 8y ago
        Your suggestions are gibberish, that would be a far more hacky protocol, and would still require upgrading every node. You gain absolutely nothing via this approach.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
zzzcpan 8y ago
It's not like that. People here can come up with plenty of ideas of how to do better, but they have no say in it or even ability to somehow influence it. It's those large corps that push for crappy ideas, as they always need them to be used to sell more stuff, raise barriers to entry, hurt competition, etc. Rule of thumb here is that if doesn't bankrupt a corporation like Cisco it's not a good enough idea.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  I don't think IPv"Hacker News" would have been a good protocol personally.

protomyth 8y ago

Every criticism of IPv6 is downvoted into oblivion, but it doesn't change the fact that great technology is adopted by the target audience quickly if there is this much effort behind it. Where IPv6 hasn't been because it is painful and doesn't make things easier for the folks who have to implement it. It is difficult, and it is different, and they did a poor job of dealing with the conversion from how IPv4 is used (NAT). Sun spent money on Java and got a huge adoption because it solved some serious problems for C++. The amount of broken IPv6 code should have been a clue.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
So, you are doing exactly what I said: You say it should have been easier and (more) backwards compatible. With absolutely no word about how that could possibly have been done, nor really even about what the supposed problems actually are, other than a vague "difficult and different". Absolutely nothing of substance. Also, what broken IPv6 code?
- protomyth 8y ago
  So, you are doing exactly what I said: You say it should have been easier and (more) backwards compatible. With absolutely no word about how that could possibly have been done, nor really even about what the supposed problems actually are, other than a vague "difficult and different". Absolutely nothing of substance. No, you aren't getting it. The "supposed problems" start with most networks using NAT and a real lack of conversion or easy bridge strategy. Are you actually saying a network of any size is easily converted to IPv6 with all services coming up fine? Its work and utter disdain for the folks who have to do the work just adds to the problem. They built a second system with all the problems of feature creep when what we needed was some more address space. Also, what broken IPv6 code? Check the Windows 10 Spring Creators Update for the latest examples, but a simple search on broken IPv6 code would have yielded the results.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    NAT is not something that should be preserved, it is 100% a hack that fundamentally breaks the nature of ipv4 and introduces a shitload of statefulness in an otherwise stateless protocol. You can achieve (effectively) identical security semantics with a network firewall, NAT is not something that should be propagated forward. How about some specifics, rather than rhetorical noise about HOW exactly do you propose that converting any network should have been easier. No matter what it would involve upgrading every network service, and every endpoint. This problem is not avoidable, if it was we could just use the same mechanism to make ipv4 last longer.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      Regardless of your feelings on NAT, it exists, its deployed, and it needs to be part of the conversation from the start. If you want people to move off NAT, then it really needed to be gradual. Look at Perl 5 to 6 for how bad this stuff can go (heck, even Python 2 -> 3 was painful). How about you add the additional 96-bits to the protocol (why 128-bits - that's boil the ocean numbers) and then the protocol sees all the 0.0.0.0 numbers as a short cut for a standard 32-bit range (I supposed with bits above and below for the eventual address expansion) while the : notation is the real full address. Then my day one experience is install the new software that is 128-bit aware and leave all my configs alone since I already have been assigned those in the IPv4 address space. Now we can do some phase 2 to get rid of the evil NAT and clean other clean up. There are a lot of much smarter people than myself, and I cannot believe someone didn't have a great suggestion to cause a minimum impact on all the folks running systems in the field. I hate burn the bridges system conversion. holy heck, you edit this one, glad I waited
      - throwaway2048 8y ago
        Your suggestions are gibberish, that would be a far more hacky protocol, and would still require upgrading every node. You gain absolutely nothing via this approach.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

zzzcpan 8y ago

It's not like that. People here can come up with plenty of ideas of how to do better, but they have no say in it or even ability to somehow influence it. It's those large corps that push for crappy ideas, as they always need them to be used to sell more stuff, raise barriers to entry, hurt competition, etc. Rule of thumb here is that if doesn't bankrupt a corporation like Cisco it's not a good enough idea.

throwaway2048 8y ago
I don't think IPv"Hacker News" would have been a good protocol personally.