4 ms·

I've heard people complaining how hard IPv6 but I've never see a plan that is actually easier than migrating to IPv6. It's always massive CGNAT investment or ma

I've heard people complaining how hard IPv6 but I've never see a plan that is actually easier than migrating to IPv6. It's always massive CGNAT investment or making non-backwards compatible changes to IPv4 that is somehow "easier" to work with.

kmonsen 5y ago
That is like all the how to terraform Mars plans. I know what is easier than living on any other planet, saving the one we are currently on right now. That being said I think it is good people are so good at being non-conformist, at least if there was any other solution out there we would more than likely have found it by now.
- est31 5y ago
  The comparison is wrong. ipv6 is already fully developed, while ipv4 is getting crowded. There are already more devices connected to the internet than there are ipv4 addresses. Already Android devices alone are more than 3 billion, PCs 1.5 billion. The limit is at 2^32 = 4.3 billion. It would be a better comparison if Mars were already habitable and one only had to move humans over. Because that's all we have to do to make ipv6 suitable.
  - nlitened 5y ago
    If I understand correctly, due to NAT we’re not limited by the number of computers vs available IP addresses, but rather by number of simultaneous connections vs (number of IPs) x (number of IP ports)
    - est31 5y ago
      You are right, NAT is why the internet still works in the first place. However, NATs have many issues, like severely harming peer to peer capabilities. There is also additional complexity. My ISP frequently has downtimes of their NAT infrastructure. Then there is the more complex routing tables. ipv4 is highly fragmented so users with many users don't have large contiguous blocks, but multiple smaller ones. This causes routing tables to bloat up, which increases routing overhead of the packets. Lastly, there is the ridiculousness of paying for ipv4 addresses in the first place. Ideally, companies could just register them, having to pay a small service fee, that's it. In ipv6 this is the case, but in ipv4 you see Amazon paying huge sums for large ipv4 blocks. More importantly though, this cost is also handed down to customers, at least for hosters like Hetzner. For small servers, this can quickly be a significant fraction of the cost.
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    I guess I explained myself really poorly, but I think we mean the same here. To be clear what I mean is that somehow making ipv4 work is much harder than migrating to ipv6. And clearly terraforming Mars is insanely harder than terraforming earth.

kmonsen 5y ago

That is like all the how to terraform Mars plans. I know what is easier than living on any other planet, saving the one we are currently on right now. That being said I think it is good people are so good at being non-conformist, at least if there was any other solution out there we would more than likely have found it by now.

est31 5y ago
The comparison is wrong. ipv6 is already fully developed, while ipv4 is getting crowded. There are already more devices connected to the internet than there are ipv4 addresses. Already Android devices alone are more than 3 billion, PCs 1.5 billion. The limit is at 2^32 = 4.3 billion. It would be a better comparison if Mars were already habitable and one only had to move humans over. Because that's all we have to do to make ipv6 suitable.
- nlitened 5y ago
  If I understand correctly, due to NAT we’re not limited by the number of computers vs available IP addresses, but rather by number of simultaneous connections vs (number of IPs) x (number of IP ports)
  - est31 5y ago
    You are right, NAT is why the internet still works in the first place. However, NATs have many issues, like severely harming peer to peer capabilities. There is also additional complexity. My ISP frequently has downtimes of their NAT infrastructure. Then there is the more complex routing tables. ipv4 is highly fragmented so users with many users don't have large contiguous blocks, but multiple smaller ones. This causes routing tables to bloat up, which increases routing overhead of the packets. Lastly, there is the ridiculousness of paying for ipv4 addresses in the first place. Ideally, companies could just register them, having to pay a small service fee, that's it. In ipv6 this is the case, but in ipv4 you see Amazon paying huge sums for large ipv4 blocks. More importantly though, this cost is also handed down to customers, at least for hosters like Hetzner. For small servers, this can quickly be a significant fraction of the cost.
- kmonsen 5y ago
  I guess I explained myself really poorly, but I think we mean the same here. To be clear what I mean is that somehow making ipv4 work is much harder than migrating to ipv6. And clearly terraforming Mars is insanely harder than terraforming earth.