4 ms·

I mean why not dream bigger. IPv6 is a mess, the absolute definition of second system syndrome. If I could fix anything, it would be IPv6 itself. The biggest t

by donatj 5y ago

I mean why not dream bigger. IPv6 is a mess, the absolute definition of second system syndrome. If I could fix anything, it would be IPv6 itself. The biggest thing preventing it's widespread adoption is it's complicated nature. An IPv4 with an extra octet or two would have seen complete adoption years ago.

toast0 5y ago
Yep, IPv4.1 with 128-bit (or whatever size; I'm not sure we really need 64-bits of local address in a subnet, but ok) addresses, none of the things that didn't work well by the mid 90s; no source routing, no router based fragmentation (maybe router based truncation instead, but maybe that's also too much to ask), no checksum or reduce checksum to not include ttl since it changes every hop, no optional fields (protocols can still have options), etc. No new/subsummed functionality. Stick with ARP and DHCP, etc. A better / more actionable upgrade path and plan to get things working so most devices could go v4.1 only quicker, etc.
Thorentis 5y ago
So glad I'm not the only one that has thought this. Every time an IPv6 discussion comes up I think to myself "why couldn't we just make IPv4 addresses longer". IPv6 tried to solve too many problems at once. We should've just focused on solving the address exhaustion issue. Instead, we have a very slow roll out of IPv6, and awful stuff like CG-NAT taking permanent hold.
- saurik 5y ago
  This is a fairly common opinion, FWIW, though sadly not one widespread enough to be zeitgeist. There were some really great article explanations of this that I am not finding right now as I am not allocating enough time to it, but like here is some other commentary from Hacker News saying the same thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17344911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17344911
kazen44 5y ago
how is ipv6 more complicated then ipv4? the friction comes from having to manage two different network stacks at once, not the so called complexity of ipv6. ipv4 is a mess in many ways, ARP for instance, is a disaster once you reach a certain scale and many of the ipv4 header fields are unneeded leading to inefficiencies. multicast on ipv4 is a mess, rfc1918 is a neat idea but ipv6 fixes it in a far better way and gets rid of NAT in the process. (and no, NAT does not increase security, ipv6 still has firewalls !) in my opinion, ipv6 is the far simpler protocol, it is the migration from ipv4 to ipv6 which is resulting in all this complexity, but it is not the fault of ipv4. and before people ask why not just extend the address space... that only solves half of the problems ipv4 has and not to mention, results in having the same dual stack situation as we have right now. extending address space is simply not possible in a backwards compatible way. and if we have to break compatibility, we might aswell fix all the other issues with ipv4.
- effie 5y ago
  Most people don't care about ipv4 problems, it works. Does ipv6 solves ipv4 problems such as impossibility to extend it in backwards compatible way? Say, I want 256 bit address space... can IPv6 be extended in that way?
  - kazen44 5y ago
    IPv6 has extension options (if that is what you are asking) by using additional headers if required. Also, forward-compatible address extension is something which is simply not possible with routing protocols in place today, and i highly doubt it will be a possibility in the near or far future considering the enroumous coordination effort required between Core players on the Default-free zone and internet at large.
Macha 5y ago
Once you make the addresses longer you need to replace all the same hardware and come up with 80% of the same problems of the IPv6 migration
poetaster 5y ago
I just wish slaac was slaac.

by donatj 5y ago

toast0 5y ago

Yep, IPv4.1 with 128-bit (or whatever size; I'm not sure we really need 64-bits of local address in a subnet, but ok) addresses, none of the things that didn't work well by the mid 90s; no source routing, no router based fragmentation (maybe router based truncation instead, but maybe that's also too much to ask), no checksum or reduce checksum to not include ttl since it changes every hop, no optional fields (protocols can still have options), etc. No new/subsummed functionality. Stick with ARP and DHCP, etc. A better / more actionable upgrade path and plan to get things working so most devices could go v4.1 only quicker, etc.

Thorentis 5y ago

So glad I'm not the only one that has thought this. Every time an IPv6 discussion comes up I think to myself "why couldn't we just make IPv4 addresses longer". IPv6 tried to solve too many problems at once. We should've just focused on solving the address exhaustion issue. Instead, we have a very slow roll out of IPv6, and awful stuff like CG-NAT taking permanent hold.

saurik 5y ago
This is a fairly common opinion, FWIW, though sadly not one widespread enough to be zeitgeist. There were some really great article explanations of this that I am not finding right now as I am not allocating enough time to it, but like here is some other commentary from Hacker News saying the same thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17344911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17344911

kazen44 5y ago

how is ipv6 more complicated then ipv4? the friction comes from having to manage two different network stacks at once, not the so called complexity of ipv6. ipv4 is a mess in many ways, ARP for instance, is a disaster once you reach a certain scale and many of the ipv4 header fields are unneeded leading to inefficiencies. multicast on ipv4 is a mess, rfc1918 is a neat idea but ipv6 fixes it in a far better way and gets rid of NAT in the process. (and no, NAT does not increase security, ipv6 still has firewalls !) in my opinion, ipv6 is the far simpler protocol, it is the migration from ipv4 to ipv6 which is resulting in all this complexity, but it is not the fault of ipv4. and before people ask why not just extend the address space... that only solves half of the problems ipv4 has and not to mention, results in having the same dual stack situation as we have right now. extending address space is simply not possible in a backwards compatible way. and if we have to break compatibility, we might aswell fix all the other issues with ipv4.

effie 5y ago
Most people don't care about ipv4 problems, it works. Does ipv6 solves ipv4 problems such as impossibility to extend it in backwards compatible way? Say, I want 256 bit address space... can IPv6 be extended in that way?
- kazen44 5y ago
  IPv6 has extension options (if that is what you are asking) by using additional headers if required. Also, forward-compatible address extension is something which is simply not possible with routing protocols in place today, and i highly doubt it will be a possibility in the near or far future considering the enroumous coordination effort required between Core players on the Default-free zone and internet at large.

Macha 5y ago

Once you make the addresses longer you need to replace all the same hardware and come up with 80% of the same problems of the IPv6 migration

poetaster 5y ago

I just wish slaac was slaac.