4 ms·

> You'd probably be encapsulating "IPv5" traffic in IPv4 traffic towards known translation routers at ISP networks. That's what 6to4 does. When enabled, it enc

by cesarb 5y ago

> You'd probably be encapsulating "IPv5" traffic in IPv4 traffic towards known translation routers at ISP networks. That's what 6to4 does. When enabled, it encapsulates IPv6 traffic in IPv4 packets and sends them towards a well-known anycast IPv4 address, and the return IPv6 traffic is sent towards a well-known anycast network, where a router encapsulates it in IPv4 packets and sends them towards the IPv4 address contained within the IPv6 address. I find it amusing that all these "IPv5" proposals either cannot work, or do the same as something which already exists for IPv6 (and in this case, it works; I've used 6to4 for a while).

ay 5y ago
You ought to use the past tense when speaking about 6to4.. As much as technically I think it was a brilliant idea (a whole /48 assigned to each existing IPv4 address owner), it failed because of the tragedy of commons.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  One of the problems with 6to4 that make it hard to deploy in well-configured networks is the DNS problem. Google runs a 6to4 DNS but warns that DNSSEC will be broken by design, and clients would need their own translation software on the software side to solve the problem. 6to4 gateways are still a thing, you can traceroute 192.88.99.1 to find the nearest gateway if you have IPv4 connectivity. I've got one seven hops from my device, but I've also got a static IPv4 address so I have little need for a gateway.
jeroenhd 5y ago
You're right about the concept, of course, but 6to4 gateways don't work the other way around. You can't reach an IPv6 network through them, you can only reach IPv4 from IPv6. My silly "IPv5" solution would also have a way for IPv4 sources to send IPv5 traffic upstream. As complex as some may find IPv6, I find it a lot simpler and more independent of routing services than many proposals for alternatives. The weirdest one I've seen involves concatenation two IP headers, giving everyone one network IP for ISPs and such and one client IP for the individual hosts, but that's just replicating IPv6 with extra steps and an even smaller MTU.

by cesarb 5y ago

ay 5y ago

You ought to use the past tense when speaking about 6to4.. As much as technically I think it was a brilliant idea (a whole /48 assigned to each existing IPv4 address owner), it failed because of the tragedy of commons.

jeroenhd 5y ago
One of the problems with 6to4 that make it hard to deploy in well-configured networks is the DNS problem. Google runs a 6to4 DNS but warns that DNSSEC will be broken by design, and clients would need their own translation software on the software side to solve the problem. 6to4 gateways are still a thing, you can traceroute 192.88.99.1 to find the nearest gateway if you have IPv4 connectivity. I've got one seven hops from my device, but I've also got a static IPv4 address so I have little need for a gateway.

jeroenhd 5y ago

You're right about the concept, of course, but 6to4 gateways don't work the other way around. You can't reach an IPv6 network through them, you can only reach IPv4 from IPv6. My silly "IPv5" solution would also have a way for IPv4 sources to send IPv5 traffic upstream. As complex as some may find IPv6, I find it a lot simpler and more independent of routing services than many proposals for alternatives. The weirdest one I've seen involves concatenation two IP headers, giving everyone one network IP for ISPs and such and one client IP for the individual hosts, but that's just replicating IPv6 with extra steps and an even smaller MTU.