5 ms·

25+ years and there’s no way to have ipv6 only connectivity and access the Internet. Definitely a failure.

ZeroSolstice 3y ago
Do you have a reference for when the Internet as a whole was supposed to cut over to IPv6 only? There are plenty of organizations that have transition mandates but those are self imposed and would easily be delayed for other monetary business objectives. The Internet as we know it was only created/available in 1993[1] and while some RIR's have exhausted their available IPv4 space it doesn't mean IPv4 addresses are not available. [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/30/1172276538/world-wide-web-internet-anniversary https://www.npr.org/2023/04/30/1172276538/world-wide-web-int...
- commandersaki 3y ago
  No but the idea of having a “cut over” is the problem.
  - ZeroSolstice 3y ago
    Agreed. I have seen a good bit of activity on the IETF opsec[1] and IPv6 operations[2] lists related to improvements. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsec/documents/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsec/documents/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/documents/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/documents/
supertrope 3y ago
T-Mobile USA is IPv6 only. They use NAT64 and 464XLAT.
- commandersaki 3y ago
  Still relies on v4. When I mean v6 only I mean a network that is devoid of v4 connectivity.
ianburrell 3y ago
Did you miss where I mentioned the protocol that let's IPv6-only hosts access the IPv4 Internet? NAT64/DNS64 are at least a decade old. And being used successfully. Facebook is moving their datacenters to IPv6-only. I can't find articles but they may be moving whole internal network.
- commandersaki 3y ago
  Still the problem arises going the other way. v4 cannot connect to a v6 only network. So useless to have v6.
  - Dagger2 3y ago
    It's not useless. v6 provides a vastly bigger address space. You're making the same mistake djb made: you've identified a problem, but rather than provide a solution, all you're doing is insinuating that somebody else should have solved it -- while failing to realize that the problem is unsolvable. If you have a solution, please share it with us. Otherwise, stop criticizing v6 for not having one. As far as I can see, nobody can do it because it's impossible, but you could easily prove me wrong by just telling us how it's done. I actually asked you this before, and you refused to answer. It's time you either put up or shut up. > Tunneling v6 packets to a known anycast that’d bridge the networks would mean that there’d be interoperability. Just to be clear, v6 already has this (it's 192.88.99.1). If this is your solution then v6 can already do it.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    It is impossible for IPv4 talk to IPv6. Just like it is impossible to talk to server behind NAT. But there are a lot fewer public servers than there are hosts and private servers. It makes sense to give the load balancers IPv4 and then have all the internal servers and hosts IPv6. IPv6 leads to much simpler internal network. Still have to do NAT64 to talk to IPv4, but have to do NAT for IPv4.
    - commandersaki 3y ago
      anycast + tunneling is one way; should've been investigated further. Not being able to have v4 talk to v6 is why v6 will never be a first class citizen.

Do you have a reference for when the Internet as a whole was supposed to cut over to IPv6 only? There are plenty of organizations that have transition mandates but those are self imposed and would easily be delayed for other monetary business objectives. The Internet as we know it was only created/available in 1993[1] and while some RIR's have exhausted their available IPv4 space it doesn't mean IPv4 addresses are not available. [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/30/1172276538/world-wide-web-internet-anniversary https://www.npr.org/2023/04/30/1172276538/world-wide-web-int...

commandersaki 3y ago
No but the idea of having a “cut over” is the problem.
- ZeroSolstice 3y ago
  Agreed. I have seen a good bit of activity on the IETF opsec[1] and IPv6 operations[2] lists related to improvements. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsec/documents/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsec/documents/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/documents/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/documents/

supertrope 3y ago

T-Mobile USA is IPv6 only. They use NAT64 and 464XLAT.

commandersaki 3y ago
Still relies on v4. When I mean v6 only I mean a network that is devoid of v4 connectivity.

ianburrell 3y ago

Did you miss where I mentioned the protocol that let's IPv6-only hosts access the IPv4 Internet? NAT64/DNS64 are at least a decade old. And being used successfully. Facebook is moving their datacenters to IPv6-only. I can't find articles but they may be moving whole internal network.

commandersaki 3y ago
Still the problem arises going the other way. v4 cannot connect to a v6 only network. So useless to have v6.
- Dagger2 3y ago
  It's not useless. v6 provides a vastly bigger address space. You're making the same mistake djb made: you've identified a problem, but rather than provide a solution, all you're doing is insinuating that somebody else should have solved it -- while failing to realize that the problem is unsolvable. If you have a solution, please share it with us. Otherwise, stop criticizing v6 for not having one. As far as I can see, nobody can do it because it's impossible, but you could easily prove me wrong by just telling us how it's done. I actually asked you this before, and you refused to answer. It's time you either put up or shut up. > Tunneling v6 packets to a known anycast that’d bridge the networks would mean that there’d be interoperability. Just to be clear, v6 already has this (it's 192.88.99.1). If this is your solution then v6 can already do it.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  It is impossible for IPv4 talk to IPv6. Just like it is impossible to talk to server behind NAT. But there are a lot fewer public servers than there are hosts and private servers. It makes sense to give the load balancers IPv4 and then have all the internal servers and hosts IPv6. IPv6 leads to much simpler internal network. Still have to do NAT64 to talk to IPv4, but have to do NAT for IPv4.
  - commandersaki 3y ago
    anycast + tunneling is one way; should've been investigated further. Not being able to have v4 talk to v6 is why v6 will never be a first class citizen.