4 ms·

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.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Tunneling doesn't help. IPv4 host only knows about 32-bit addresses. It would be possible to have some proxy service but that would only work for subset and IPv6 is too big for that. What works is having IPv4 proxy for services. There is no need for IPv4 hosts to talk to IPv6 hosts. For one thing, many hosts are dual-homed. IPv4 can keep doing its thing while everybody switches to IPv6.
    - commandersaki 3y ago
      Tunneling v6 packets to a known anycast that’d bridge the networks would mean that there’d be interoperability. With interoperability it would mean that hosting a service on a v6 only network means you wouldn’t need a v4 address (which today is a must have and expensive unlike v6 which is optional).
      - ianburrell 3y ago
        The IPv4 host can't tunnel IPv6 packets, it has no concept that IPv6 exists. It can only talk to IPv4. You could have some dynamic IPv4 to IPv6 service, which needs IPv4 addresses. But it is much simpler for each service to have one IPv4 address on the load balancer. Also, the real shortage with IPv4 is with devices where ISPs are using CGNAT. Server addresses are less important when can run an entire company with a handful.

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.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Tunneling doesn't help. IPv4 host only knows about 32-bit addresses. It would be possible to have some proxy service but that would only work for subset and IPv6 is too big for that. What works is having IPv4 proxy for services. There is no need for IPv4 hosts to talk to IPv6 hosts. For one thing, many hosts are dual-homed. IPv4 can keep doing its thing while everybody switches to IPv6.
  - commandersaki 3y ago
    Tunneling v6 packets to a known anycast that’d bridge the networks would mean that there’d be interoperability. With interoperability it would mean that hosting a service on a v6 only network means you wouldn’t need a v4 address (which today is a must have and expensive unlike v6 which is optional).
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      The IPv4 host can't tunnel IPv6 packets, it has no concept that IPv6 exists. It can only talk to IPv4. You could have some dynamic IPv4 to IPv6 service, which needs IPv4 addresses. But it is much simpler for each service to have one IPv4 address on the load balancer. Also, the real shortage with IPv4 is with devices where ISPs are using CGNAT. Server addresses are less important when can run an entire company with a handful.