3 ms·
But if you only buy an ipv6 address, the people who are only on ipv4 can't get to you. By itself, the ipv6 address is nearly worthless. The only people who ha
by andyv 16y ago
But if you only buy an ipv6 address, the people who are only on ipv4 can't get to you. By itself, the ipv6 address is nearly worthless. The only people who have them now are people who also have an ipv4 address. ipv4 isn't going away any time soon...
- tomjen3 16y agoTake any prefix thats currently unallocated and make it so that you slap that in front on any ipv4 address. Volia now everybody has an ipv6 address.
- devicenull 16y agoWhat's wrong with the standard way of doing it? ::127.0.0.1
- amalcon 16y agoThere's a prefix allocated explicitly for that. The problem isn't getting an address, the problem is getting the software to use it.
- pyre 16y agoCurrently IPv4 addresses fix nicely (exactly) into a 32-bit integer. How do you propose that software storing addresses as such will be able to use a larger address without an update? (Not to mention all of the other reasons, like the different packet format to accommodate the larger address space among other things)
- drdaeman 16y agoNope, there's always NAT64+DNS64 to rescue. Well, when ISP hits a cap they either have to get more IPv4 addresses (which they won't be able to do soon) or use some NAT. Except for legacy systems support, NAT64 is clearly a winner here.
- andyv 16y agoNAT64 works fine if you have an ipv6 client and want to talk to ipv6. That's just regular old network address translation. But if your server is on ipv6, NAT64 still needs an ipv4 address so that people there can get to you. The ipv6 address is pointless-- it's easier just to put your server on ipv4 and not mess with NAT64 or ipv6.