4 ms·
And if ipv6 weren't balls to the wall insane with the only goal of being as different as possible from v4, we would have. But we have what we have.
by arpa 6y ago
And if ipv6 weren't balls to the wall insane with the only goal of being as different as possible from v4, we would have. But we have what we have.
- Dagger2 6y agoIt's actually very similar to v4, just with more bits. It has an identical network model to v4: routing and address assignment work the same way. It works over the same L2 links as v4, and L4 protocols like TCP and UDP all work the same. DNS is the same. The socket API is the same. Link-local addresses exist in v4 too, and v4 even had router advertisements already before v6 was even out. If they intended v6 to be as different as possible to v4, they wouldn't have designed it to work mostly like v4 with bigger addresses. They could've given it variable length addresses, or a locator/identifier split, or any number of other useful features that would've made it different to v4... but they didn't.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shaicoleman 6y ago"The world in which IPv6 was a good design" (long read) dives into why it was designed that way. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14986324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14986324
- arpa 6y agoThanks!
- arpa 6y agoHm. Perhaps better put it this way: if the adoption would be as simple as changing 4bytes to 6, we would be using it for 20 years already.