4 ms·

sure, just prepend every address with some more bits to indicate which multiverse it's from. while you are at it you might as well add a lot of bits, say, 96 o

sure, just prepend every address with some more bits to indicate which multiverse it's from. while you are at it you might as well add a lot of bits, say, 96 of them.

hatsunearu 7y ago
IPV6 is probably the worst "upgrade" to have ever rolled out and graced our world with its stinky existence. It's been a decade and IPv6 has barely entered the zeitgeist of the common internet user.
- sigstoat 7y ago
  i don't know what's in the "zeitgiest of the common internet user" but i'm pretty sure IPv4 isn't in there either. besides, https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- easytiger 7y ago
  > It's been a decade and IPv6 has barely entered the zeitgeist of the common internet user. It has not been a decade! I remember printing out the draft spec in the late 1990s thinking that I have to get ahead of this curve. Twenty years in the making. I recall at the time thinking initially that the obscure nomenclature for addressing would be annoying, but that it clearly would be fine. What do I know. In 2010 hackernews luminaries predicted the ipv6 momentum singlularity here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236048 The fact of the matter is very very large private corporate networks do not need more addressing space. ISPs use CGnats. Most home broadband routers|modems are junk. It is just a mess
  - throwawaycert 7y ago
    More than a quarter of Google's traffic today is IPv6. So apparently ISP's representing a quarter of their traffic don't consider the marketing oxymoron that is "carrier grade nat" an adequate substitute for IPv6...
criley2 7y ago
"as opposed to throwing these non-upgradable, hardcoded v4 devices out" Prepending bits wasn't a solution for the problem he discussed.
oh_sigh 7y ago
If that's all IPV6 was it would have been fully rolled out 15 years ago.
solotronics 7y ago
we could even call it IPv6, and then improve a lot of the shortcomings of IPv4 but then everyone would complain that its harder to write the numbers and try and come up with excuses for implementing it
- isostatic 7y ago
  Other people would then throw in tons of extra features like arp replacement, dhcp replacement, new ways to deal with qos, wide use of link local address, etc. IPv6 isn’t just a few extra bytes in an IP address.
electronstudio 7y ago
If they had done just that and only that - taken IPv4 and added more bits - we might all be using IPv6 now. Instead they used the opportunity to cram every feature but the kitchen sink in there, so none of the hardware vendors were interested in implementing it and the backbones were slow to adopt it. So we got mass adoption of NAT instead of mass adoption of IPv6.
- wbl 7y ago
  They removed, not added features. The hardware problems had more to do with other things.
  - yardstick 7y ago
    Yeah it’s the feature changes that made it problematic. They removed NAT, which made laymen deployment difficult. I can’t just plug an IPv6 router behind another router (or 3-4 levels of routers) and expect it to just work. In IPv4, DHCP+NAT handles that just fine. In IPv6 I need to worry about address assignment. I don’t care about P2P connectivity issues- the NAT trade-off of using STUN/TURN techniques works for me. They replaced ARP, and replaced DHCP with SLAAC then realised that people like DHCP so added a version of DHCP back. Except it’s still not the same so has it’s own quirks. Then there’s the difficulty of supporting multiple IPv6 WANs in one router in a useful fashion. SLAAC takes too long for a PC to detect a dead WAN and use the other WAN range. And there’s no ability to do policy based routing (eg prefer YouTube via dsl, prefer VoIP via fibre) without using NAT+ULA. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of great things about not using NAT, but there’s a lot of real world scenarios where using NAT is the preferred trade-off. IPv6 originally decided they didn’t want NAT, and tried to force people into their one way of doing things. They just needed to support both, and then IPv6 deployments wouldn’t be so complicated. They added NAT and DHCPv6 far too late in the game. Even Android doesn’t support DHCPv6 yet and it’s 2019!
    - avian 7y ago
      > They removed NAT, which made laymen deployment difficult. I can’t just plug an IPv6 router behind another router (or 3-4 levels of routers) and expect it to just work. Is this common, plugging consumer routers with NAT several layers deep? I haven’t seen that in the wild. The only time I myself tried it didn’t work for some unknown reason. My only real gripe with IPv6 is the fact that Duplicate Address Detection seems broken on many Wi-Fi networks (clients for some reason see their own traffic as traffic from another node and trigger DAD, which shuts down IPv6 access). I’ve seen this on routers from multiple vendors and I believe it’s some bug in their broadcast/multicast implementations.

sure, just prepend every address with some more bits to indicate which multiverse it's from. while you are at it you might as well add a lot of bits, say, 96 of them.

hatsunearu 7y ago

IPV6 is probably the worst "upgrade" to have ever rolled out and graced our world with its stinky existence. It's been a decade and IPv6 has barely entered the zeitgeist of the common internet user.

sigstoat 7y ago
i don't know what's in the "zeitgiest of the common internet user" but i'm pretty sure IPv4 isn't in there either. besides, https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
easytiger 7y ago
> It's been a decade and IPv6 has barely entered the zeitgeist of the common internet user. It has not been a decade! I remember printing out the draft spec in the late 1990s thinking that I have to get ahead of this curve. Twenty years in the making. I recall at the time thinking initially that the obscure nomenclature for addressing would be annoying, but that it clearly would be fine. What do I know. In 2010 hackernews luminaries predicted the ipv6 momentum singlularity here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236048 The fact of the matter is very very large private corporate networks do not need more addressing space. ISPs use CGnats. Most home broadband routers|modems are junk. It is just a mess
- throwawaycert 7y ago
  More than a quarter of Google's traffic today is IPv6. So apparently ISP's representing a quarter of their traffic don't consider the marketing oxymoron that is "carrier grade nat" an adequate substitute for IPv6...

criley2 7y ago

"as opposed to throwing these non-upgradable, hardcoded v4 devices out" Prepending bits wasn't a solution for the problem he discussed.

oh_sigh 7y ago

If that's all IPV6 was it would have been fully rolled out 15 years ago.

solotronics 7y ago

we could even call it IPv6, and then improve a lot of the shortcomings of IPv4 but then everyone would complain that its harder to write the numbers and try and come up with excuses for implementing it

isostatic 7y ago
Other people would then throw in tons of extra features like arp replacement, dhcp replacement, new ways to deal with qos, wide use of link local address, etc. IPv6 isn’t just a few extra bytes in an IP address.

electronstudio 7y ago

If they had done just that and only that - taken IPv4 and added more bits - we might all be using IPv6 now. Instead they used the opportunity to cram every feature but the kitchen sink in there, so none of the hardware vendors were interested in implementing it and the backbones were slow to adopt it. So we got mass adoption of NAT instead of mass adoption of IPv6.

wbl 7y ago
They removed, not added features. The hardware problems had more to do with other things.
- yardstick 7y ago
  Yeah it’s the feature changes that made it problematic. They removed NAT, which made laymen deployment difficult. I can’t just plug an IPv6 router behind another router (or 3-4 levels of routers) and expect it to just work. In IPv4, DHCP+NAT handles that just fine. In IPv6 I need to worry about address assignment. I don’t care about P2P connectivity issues- the NAT trade-off of using STUN/TURN techniques works for me. They replaced ARP, and replaced DHCP with SLAAC then realised that people like DHCP so added a version of DHCP back. Except it’s still not the same so has it’s own quirks. Then there’s the difficulty of supporting multiple IPv6 WANs in one router in a useful fashion. SLAAC takes too long for a PC to detect a dead WAN and use the other WAN range. And there’s no ability to do policy based routing (eg prefer YouTube via dsl, prefer VoIP via fibre) without using NAT+ULA. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of great things about not using NAT, but there’s a lot of real world scenarios where using NAT is the preferred trade-off. IPv6 originally decided they didn’t want NAT, and tried to force people into their one way of doing things. They just needed to support both, and then IPv6 deployments wouldn’t be so complicated. They added NAT and DHCPv6 far too late in the game. Even Android doesn’t support DHCPv6 yet and it’s 2019!
  - avian 7y ago
    > They removed NAT, which made laymen deployment difficult. I can’t just plug an IPv6 router behind another router (or 3-4 levels of routers) and expect it to just work. Is this common, plugging consumer routers with NAT several layers deep? I haven’t seen that in the wild. The only time I myself tried it didn’t work for some unknown reason. My only real gripe with IPv6 is the fact that Duplicate Address Detection seems broken on many Wi-Fi networks (clients for some reason see their own traffic as traffic from another node and trigger DAD, which shuts down IPv6 access). I’ve seen this on routers from multiple vendors and I believe it’s some bug in their broadcast/multicast implementations.