6 ms·

I mean it’s all probably true, but how would it be easier to migrate to long ipv4 than to ipv6? Looks like there’s basically the same struggle, no? I think the

by allarm 3y ago

I mean it’s all probably true, but how would it be easier to migrate to long ipv4 than to ipv6? Looks like there’s basically the same struggle, no? I think the major part of the migration problem is the global routing - the new protocol should be implemented in hardware, in ASICs and route processors. The LAN part of the migration is likely the easiest. And if it’s true, breaking compatibility and introducing a completely different protocol was probably well justified. IPv6 solves some other problems aside of the address space exhaustion - see SLAAC, easier route summarization, simplified packet header. That would not have been resolved by simply increasing the address space for v4.

theamk 3y ago
Is global routing really the problem in 2023? Anecdotally, its the end user's service which is hardest to migrate, and specifically all If end user wants IPv6 in the office, but their ISP does not support it, enable HE (or some other one) tunnel on router and you done, here is a few dozens more IPv6 hosts generating traffic and increasing IPv6 fraction. If ISP wants everyone to use IPv6, but end users do not support it... well, ISP can do whatever but the traffic should eventually emerge as IPv4 and there would be no forward motion. I know a few places which still use IPv4 and have no plans for IPv6 -- my work's DC network, my work's office network, my home network, etc.. The reason they are are still on IPv4 have nothing to do with global routing or hardware support (everything is on a fairly new software), but rather all the unrelated changes IPv6 has bundled with longer addressees such as SLAAC. Do you know of any networks which are still on IPv4? What is their sysadmin's motivation?
- allarm 3y ago
  > Is global routing really the problem in 2023? I don't think so, why? I was talking about migrating from v4 on the day 0, when every single ip-speaking device used v4 only. My point was that on day 0 the main problem was global routing, because the new protocol should have got hardware support and all the network equipment should have been replaced. Local networks migration is much easier to do. > Do you know of any networks which are still on IPv4? I managed networks for around 15 years, up until 2018 and I've never managed an IPv6 network in my whole career. My current company (a well-known company from SF) runs v4 only network. I think the question should be different: what is the motivation for sysadmins and the business to migrate to v6, if v4 runs perfectly fine? And the answer is - there's basically none.
  - theamk 3y ago
    Oh, I don't think "day 0" migration would ever be possible.. but with less breaking changes it could have taken 10 or 15 years instead 30+. And then no one would care about IPv4 shortages anymore for example. The companies change stuff all the time - there is new software, there are new protocols, new hardware. For example, I remember setting up QoS/DSCP once because I _thought_ it might help with ssh sessions (it didn't). My current company routinely has cleanup/general improvement projects, to both improve network and keep network engineers happier. And given the amount of noise about IP shortage, we'd definitely consider IPv6 migration _if it only wasn't so damn expensive, time-wise_.
    - Dagger2 3y ago
      That might well be true! It just doesn't seem to be possible. There's no point wishing for fewer breaking changes when the one thing you're doing all of this for -- longer addresses -- is the thing causing the breakage. I don't think any of your IP-long suggestions would reduce the time you needed to deploy v6. If you disagree... perhaps v6 wouldn't actually take you as much time to deploy as you're imagining it will.

by allarm 3y ago

theamk 3y ago

Is global routing really the problem in 2023? Anecdotally, its the end user's service which is hardest to migrate, and specifically all If end user wants IPv6 in the office, but their ISP does not support it, enable HE (or some other one) tunnel on router and you done, here is a few dozens more IPv6 hosts generating traffic and increasing IPv6 fraction. If ISP wants everyone to use IPv6, but end users do not support it... well, ISP can do whatever but the traffic should eventually emerge as IPv4 and there would be no forward motion. I know a few places which still use IPv4 and have no plans for IPv6 -- my work's DC network, my work's office network, my home network, etc.. The reason they are are still on IPv4 have nothing to do with global routing or hardware support (everything is on a fairly new software), but rather all the unrelated changes IPv6 has bundled with longer addressees such as SLAAC. Do you know of any networks which are still on IPv4? What is their sysadmin's motivation?

allarm 3y ago
> Is global routing really the problem in 2023? I don't think so, why? I was talking about migrating from v4 on the day 0, when every single ip-speaking device used v4 only. My point was that on day 0 the main problem was global routing, because the new protocol should have got hardware support and all the network equipment should have been replaced. Local networks migration is much easier to do. > Do you know of any networks which are still on IPv4? I managed networks for around 15 years, up until 2018 and I've never managed an IPv6 network in my whole career. My current company (a well-known company from SF) runs v4 only network. I think the question should be different: what is the motivation for sysadmins and the business to migrate to v6, if v4 runs perfectly fine? And the answer is - there's basically none.
- theamk 3y ago
  Oh, I don't think "day 0" migration would ever be possible.. but with less breaking changes it could have taken 10 or 15 years instead 30+. And then no one would care about IPv4 shortages anymore for example. The companies change stuff all the time - there is new software, there are new protocols, new hardware. For example, I remember setting up QoS/DSCP once because I _thought_ it might help with ssh sessions (it didn't). My current company routinely has cleanup/general improvement projects, to both improve network and keep network engineers happier. And given the amount of noise about IP shortage, we'd definitely consider IPv6 migration _if it only wasn't so damn expensive, time-wise_.
  - Dagger2 3y ago
    That might well be true! It just doesn't seem to be possible. There's no point wishing for fewer breaking changes when the one thing you're doing all of this for -- longer addresses -- is the thing causing the breakage. I don't think any of your IP-long suggestions would reduce the time you needed to deploy v6. If you disagree... perhaps v6 wouldn't actually take you as much time to deploy as you're imagining it will.