6 ms·
People wanted to change bitfield with version from 4 to 6 and increase amount of bytes in IP address filed. Simple KISS. Instead of that we got fragile, backwa
by TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
People wanted to change bitfield with version from 4 to 6 and increase amount of bytes in IP address filed. Simple KISS.
Instead of that we got fragile, backward incompatible, unnecessarily complex, jack of all trades protocol. And people are surprised that even after decades since the release of IPv6, it is being avoided like a plague.
- p1mrx 3y agoConsider that NAT64 is able to translate between IPv4 and IPv6 at the packet level. If the protocols were as different as you suggest, this wouldn't be possible.
- michaelt 3y agoDoesn't IPv6 remove broadcast, thus removing DHCP and ARP? I mean, hosts need to be 'dual stack' to support IPv4 and IPv6 together - whereas TheLoafOfBread's proposal would allow support of both with one backward-compatible stack.
- p1mrx 3y agoDHCP and ARP use 32-bit addresses, so those protocols had to change regardless. I would challenge you to find someone who knows the difference between Ethernet broadcast and multicast without looking up the answer. They are very similar mechanisms.
- yencabulator 3y agoNAT64 is never in a position to need to translate DHCP & ARP, those live fully on one side of NAT64 ("4" side for DHCP & ARP, "6" side for SLAAC/DHCPv6 & NDP). NAT64 is involved on the level of TCP & UDP, not lower level protocols.
- doublepg23 3y agoThis comes up often. What do you think would happen if you sent a “IPv4+” packet? All the ossified equipment would drop it. So you have to replace all this equipment, ideally _once_ so we ought to make it count.