4 ms·

Where would these extra 32 bits come from? This simple IPv4.1 would still require all networking hardware and software to be updated. The protocol would also no

by Thiez 6y ago

Where would these extra 32 bits come from? This simple IPv4.1 would still require all networking hardware and software to be updated. The protocol would also not be backwards compatible and people would still want dual stack. I imagine adoption would not be that much easier than IPv6 adoption, while missing out on the additional improvements that come with IPv6.

oarsinsync 6y ago
> while missing out on the additional improvements that come with IPv6. Can you give some examples of what these additional improvements are?
- caf 6y ago
  One is a much smaller full global routing table.
- crooked-v 6y ago
  Well, the obvious one is having 2^128 addresses instead of just 2^64 addresses.
- hkt 6y ago
  There are a few. Things like the way addresses are given out (appending your Mac address to the local prefix), large address spaces (IPv6 could number every atom in existence and then some) which then permits getting rid of NAT, and especially CGNAT (carrier grade NAT). Generally speaking the administrative hacks which enable the internet to keep going as-is can go away. NAT in particular breaks lots of applications which is why STUN/TURN servers are needed for many VoIP applications today, so that two NATed clients can talk directly. The address space issues mean that even if the registry gives out silly allocations (like the UK's MoD having a /8) the space is so near infinite that it won't matter. Even the most incompetent governance can't exhaust the address space.
  - adriancr 6y ago
    Appending MAC to address is a privacy nightmare and is going away with privacy extensions. (I dont want people to know what NIC i have and potentially track me by looking up who bought it). Because of that DHCP may be needed and ARP as well... nice right? Getting rid of NAT is also questionable and there are now tools to do NAT with IPv6. So common sense and learned practices win. (I still prefer NAT and firewall, dedicated servers can have port forwarding or separare ip allocated) Address space is the only feature worth anything as original poster mentioned. This is a nice read on needless issues due to redesign of working protocol: https://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare-that-ate-my-week/ https://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare...
    - spacechild1 6y ago
      There is no use for NAT under IPv6 at all. It's sole purpose was to work around the IPv4 address space shortage. Any perceived security benefit was coincidental. NAT should not do the job of a firewall.
      - adriancr 6y ago
        NAT hides all devices I have in my network from the world. Nobody from the outside will know who made request x from the n devices in the network. NAT is mainly privacy/obfuscation. Can you do that with a firewall? Another use case is connectivity: - digital ocean gives 16 ipv6 addresses, how can I vpn through it with more hosts without NAT? - me as a lone node on another network want to host a VPN but have a limited set of IPv6 addresses available. - tethering Note: I will actually be setting up a network with NATv6, DHCPv6 and a firewall in about a month, so I do need it, and since tools are available, I am not the only one.
        spacechild1 6y ago
        > NAT is mainly privacy/obfuscation. That is not the original purpose of NAT. What about IPv6 privacy extensions? > Another use case is connectivity: Ok, there might be valid use cases for NATv6 (I am not an expert), but it shouldn't be necessary for typical consumer home networks. I have no problems with NAT as long as it a) doesn't block incoming traffic (that is the job of a firewall) b) doesn't perform symmetric address/port translation (breaks peer-to-peer applications).
hkt 6y ago
Dual stacking with 64 (or more) bits and 32 bits would otherwise use the same software. It would be cheaper, require less training, and require less development. It would therefore not face the old, established IPv6 problems covered in the article, and could even treat the old IPv4 ranges as a /32 within the 64 bit address space. Rather than being more than twice as expensive in terms of expertise and development, it would be nearly as cheap as doing nothing.

by Thiez 6y ago

oarsinsync 6y ago

> while missing out on the additional improvements that come with IPv6. Can you give some examples of what these additional improvements are?

caf 6y ago
One is a much smaller full global routing table.
crooked-v 6y ago
Well, the obvious one is having 2^128 addresses instead of just 2^64 addresses.
hkt 6y ago
There are a few. Things like the way addresses are given out (appending your Mac address to the local prefix), large address spaces (IPv6 could number every atom in existence and then some) which then permits getting rid of NAT, and especially CGNAT (carrier grade NAT). Generally speaking the administrative hacks which enable the internet to keep going as-is can go away. NAT in particular breaks lots of applications which is why STUN/TURN servers are needed for many VoIP applications today, so that two NATed clients can talk directly. The address space issues mean that even if the registry gives out silly allocations (like the UK's MoD having a /8) the space is so near infinite that it won't matter. Even the most incompetent governance can't exhaust the address space.
- adriancr 6y ago
  Appending MAC to address is a privacy nightmare and is going away with privacy extensions. (I dont want people to know what NIC i have and potentially track me by looking up who bought it). Because of that DHCP may be needed and ARP as well... nice right? Getting rid of NAT is also questionable and there are now tools to do NAT with IPv6. So common sense and learned practices win. (I still prefer NAT and firewall, dedicated servers can have port forwarding or separare ip allocated) Address space is the only feature worth anything as original poster mentioned. This is a nice read on needless issues due to redesign of working protocol: https://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare-that-ate-my-week/ https://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare...
  - spacechild1 6y ago
    There is no use for NAT under IPv6 at all. It's sole purpose was to work around the IPv4 address space shortage. Any perceived security benefit was coincidental. NAT should not do the job of a firewall.
    - adriancr 6y ago
      NAT hides all devices I have in my network from the world. Nobody from the outside will know who made request x from the n devices in the network. NAT is mainly privacy/obfuscation. Can you do that with a firewall? Another use case is connectivity: - digital ocean gives 16 ipv6 addresses, how can I vpn through it with more hosts without NAT? - me as a lone node on another network want to host a VPN but have a limited set of IPv6 addresses available. - tethering Note: I will actually be setting up a network with NATv6, DHCPv6 and a firewall in about a month, so I do need it, and since tools are available, I am not the only one.
      - spacechild1 6y ago
        > NAT is mainly privacy/obfuscation. That is not the original purpose of NAT. What about IPv6 privacy extensions? > Another use case is connectivity: Ok, there might be valid use cases for NATv6 (I am not an expert), but it shouldn't be necessary for typical consumer home networks. I have no problems with NAT as long as it a) doesn't block incoming traffic (that is the job of a firewall) b) doesn't perform symmetric address/port translation (breaks peer-to-peer applications).

hkt 6y ago

Dual stacking with 64 (or more) bits and 32 bits would otherwise use the same software. It would be cheaper, require less training, and require less development. It would therefore not face the old, established IPv6 problems covered in the article, and could even treat the old IPv4 ranges as a /32 within the 64 bit address space. Rather than being more than twice as expensive in terms of expertise and development, it would be nearly as cheap as doing nothing.