8 ms·

I wish we would get an "IPv6 as it was meant to be" - v4 just with more octets. That's it. That's all we wanted. That's all we needed. If that was the IPv6 spec

I wish we would get an "IPv6 as it was meant to be" - v4 just with more octets. That's it. That's all we wanted. That's all we needed. If that was the IPv6 spec, we'd have already been using it for the past decade. We'd have avoided the #1 problem of v4, address scarcity, while retaining its superior user experience, and articles about expensive v4's wouldn't exist. IPv6 is a travesty because its creators failed to consider the users. Nobody wants to deal with it. And that's why its adoption will eternally be "just around the corner!"

wiml 3y ago
What exactly are the problems that you think would have been avoided? As far as I can tell, the stumbling block to v6 adoption is just the fact that v6-only and v4-only hosts can't communicate without help, and you would have that problem in any form of "v4 with more octets". Sure, v6 made a few other changes, but why do you think those are the problem?
- cyberax 3y ago
  There were plenty of stumbling blocks early in the process. 1. SLAAC had been half-baked for the first 10 years. You were supposed to run SLAAC _along_ with stateless DHCPv6 just to get the DNS settings. 2. The initial rollout was embarrassing. The initial idea was to avoid the PI (Provider Independent) prefixes. 3. There is a plethora of non-intuitive features, like on-link addresses instead of the simple "subnet mask" in IPv4. 4. DHCPv6 is strictly worse than V4 for management. Whoever thought that DUIDs are a good idea... 5. IPv6 managed to break fragmentation and PMTU _even_ _more_ than IPv4. 6. HappyEyeballs that mitigate the V4/V6 instabilities became a standard only around 2012. Etc. Honestly, there's pretty much nothing that went right in the IPv6 development.
WorldMaker 3y ago
v4 with more octets is still backwards incompatible with v4. It would have had all the same problems and headaches in rollout, not only would "nobody want to deal with it', it would have even fewer reasons to switch. IPv6 at least has some forward-facing features to give people reasons to switch (even if people still argue if they "are worth it").

wiml 3y ago

What exactly are the problems that you think would have been avoided? As far as I can tell, the stumbling block to v6 adoption is just the fact that v6-only and v4-only hosts can't communicate without help, and you would have that problem in any form of "v4 with more octets". Sure, v6 made a few other changes, but why do you think those are the problem?

cyberax 3y ago
There were plenty of stumbling blocks early in the process. 1. SLAAC had been half-baked for the first 10 years. You were supposed to run SLAAC _along_ with stateless DHCPv6 just to get the DNS settings. 2. The initial rollout was embarrassing. The initial idea was to avoid the PI (Provider Independent) prefixes. 3. There is a plethora of non-intuitive features, like on-link addresses instead of the simple "subnet mask" in IPv4. 4. DHCPv6 is strictly worse than V4 for management. Whoever thought that DUIDs are a good idea... 5. IPv6 managed to break fragmentation and PMTU _even_ _more_ than IPv4. 6. HappyEyeballs that mitigate the V4/V6 instabilities became a standard only around 2012. Etc. Honestly, there's pretty much nothing that went right in the IPv6 development.

WorldMaker 3y ago

v4 with more octets is still backwards incompatible with v4. It would have had all the same problems and headaches in rollout, not only would "nobody want to deal with it', it would have even fewer reasons to switch. IPv6 at least has some forward-facing features to give people reasons to switch (even if people still argue if they "are worth it").