3 ms·

Sure, that's annoying too, but I don't see how it's relevant to the topic at hand. IPv6 isn't some shiny new tech, the original RFC just turned 26. It's also no

by magila 5y ago

Sure, that's annoying too, but I don't see how it's relevant to the topic at hand. IPv6 isn't some shiny new tech, the original RFC just turned 26. It's also not just a superficial re-write of some existing tool, it fixes a real problem which clearly needs to be addressed (no pun intended).

_0w8t 5y ago
I wish v6 just tried to fix things. The problem with v6 was that it also tried to do thing in a right way and broke too much compatibility. And then it turned out what was right in 1995 was no longer so for the last 10 years.
- Dagger2 5y ago
  It mostly only broke the things it had to break. v4 isn't forwards compatible to longer address lengths, so the lack of compatibility isn't the fault of any aspect of v6's design.
  - _0w8t 5y ago
    v6 128-bit address was an attempt to simplify the routing. The was fear that with big routing tables that v4 stated to require 25 years ago the performance would collapse. In practice it never became an issue. Yet with smaller address space, like with just 48 bits, connecting from v6 to v4 address would be possible with much less complex nat.
    - Dagger2 5y ago
      That was part of it, but there was also a desire to be very sure we had enough address space to avoid needing to go through this again. SEND and privacy extensions also make use of the 128-bit address to add some security. It's already possible to connect from v6 to v4, and using 48-bit addresses wouldn't make doing so any easier. 48 bits would also be way too small; there'd be no point in going to this amount of effort to update IP only to then have to do it a second time straight afterwards.
orev 5y ago
I agree my response isn’t directly relevant, I’m just tired of seeing the same tropes over and over again about how Ops people’s only motivation is to drag their feet on everything just because they’re old and out of date. They actually have good reasons for having processes that appear to slow things down, for good reason.

by magila 5y ago

_0w8t 5y ago

I wish v6 just tried to fix things. The problem with v6 was that it also tried to do thing in a right way and broke too much compatibility. And then it turned out what was right in 1995 was no longer so for the last 10 years.

Dagger2 5y ago
It mostly only broke the things it had to break. v4 isn't forwards compatible to longer address lengths, so the lack of compatibility isn't the fault of any aspect of v6's design.
- _0w8t 5y ago
  v6 128-bit address was an attempt to simplify the routing. The was fear that with big routing tables that v4 stated to require 25 years ago the performance would collapse. In practice it never became an issue. Yet with smaller address space, like with just 48 bits, connecting from v6 to v4 address would be possible with much less complex nat.
  - Dagger2 5y ago
    That was part of it, but there was also a desire to be very sure we had enough address space to avoid needing to go through this again. SEND and privacy extensions also make use of the 128-bit address to add some security. It's already possible to connect from v6 to v4, and using 48-bit addresses wouldn't make doing so any easier. 48 bits would also be way too small; there'd be no point in going to this amount of effort to update IP only to then have to do it a second time straight afterwards.

orev 5y ago

I agree my response isn’t directly relevant, I’m just tired of seeing the same tropes over and over again about how Ops people’s only motivation is to drag their feet on everything just because they’re old and out of date. They actually have good reasons for having processes that appear to slow things down, for good reason.