5 ms·

Since the main problem was address space, they should've just expanded it. Let everyone keep their old v4 addresses (with 0-padding), focus on the protocol upgr

Since the main problem was address space, they should've just expanded it. Let everyone keep their old v4 addresses (with 0-padding), focus on the protocol upgrade, and give new users longer addresses for cheaper. You wouldn't even need DNS changes initially. Instead, v6 became a whole new thing with additional goals like removing NAT (which I'm not even convinced is a good idea), so of course there'd be way more friction. Like, I said this elsewhere, Cloudflare public DNS is 1.1.1.1. If I switch to ipv6, I get to use 2606:4700:4700::1111. You telling me that's an upgrade?

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
I agree. Instead of just making v4 addresses bigger (and related services around the protocol as well - ICMP, DNS, ...) a committee spawned jack of all trades, master of none IPv6 incompatible with current IPv4 stack.
- bauruine 3y ago
  IPv6 is compatible with IPv4 there are millions of devices with only an IPv6 address that work just fine.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    No, I only have a v4 address with my ISP and cannot use a v6-only device at home.
    - bauruine 3y ago
      IPv6 is backwards compatible to IPv4 but not the other way around. If you have a solution how to address a 128bit IPv6 address with the 32bits available on v4 I'm sure many people are eager to talk to you. It's just not possible.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        With a 6-to-4 gateway then yeah. But at that point you're using v4.
        Dagger2 3y ago
        How do you expect compatibility with v4 protocols/software/hardware/routers/ISPs to work without using v4? That's a serious question. Do you have a way for this to work? Because I don't think it's possible (for fundamental reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle), and it would be extremely unfair to criticize the designers of v6 for not fixing an unfixable problem.
p1mrx 3y ago
> Cloudflare public DNS is 1.1.1.1. If I switch to ipv6, I get to use 2606:4700:4700::1111. You telling me that's an upgrade? The concept of vanity IPv4 addresses was invented in 2009, when Google acquired 8.8.8.0/24 from Level3. This is an emergent feature of a small, densely packed address space. IPv6 had existed for a decade (EDIT: not two decades) by that point, so you can't really blame the designers. Sprint controls 2600::, probably by accident, but they're not doing anything interesting with it.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  That's true, but even the less memorable v4 addresses are easier to deal with and nicer on the eyes. And on a LAN with a NAT, you typically get memorable addresses like 192.168.1.2. Maybe the bigger issue was trying to get rid of NAT. People don't want every local network device to have a public IP and have to trust that the router's v6 firewall will do its job.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > People don't want every local network device to have a public IP I absolutely don't want this. But as I understand it, I can avoid this by assigning my machines the IPv6 nonroutable addresses fe80::/64. They're the equivalent of 192.168.* and 10.*
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      Same as the firewall, it's fine if it's done right. But does every machine get link-local v6 addresses by default? My Mac is set to "automatic," which I assume asks the router. Even if I use link-local, does every router (even crappy ones) respect the no-forward rule? This is along with several other aspects of my network changing to use v6. Meanwhile, if someone sends a v4 packet with TCP port 22 to my router, it can't tell where to forward it even if it wanted to. It takes effort to do that, namely a port forwarding config.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
bell-cot 3y ago
Yep. It's as if they didn't understand that ~nobody would want to leave the great old IPv4 Club (packed with all your friends, and everyone who you'd want to meet) for the shoddy new IPv6 Club (with ~zero people there, probably nobody you know, and good luck trying to get a waiter's attention). And also pay for memberships in both clubs during the vague "eventually" transition period.
unethical_ban 3y ago
Yes. Also, any change to the protocol was going to be a massive shift regarding network hardware. It wasn't ever possible to slap a few more bytes onto the address. If you're going to make a monumentap shift, why not do it right?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > If you're going to make a monumentap shift, why not do it right? yes, that was the argument from the very beginning, and it's not without merit. I disagree with it, because it's making a monumental shift into one that is even more monumental and increases resistance to making the change at all. But who knows? Both sides of this argument are just speculating.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  It would still be a much smaller shift if they focused on only expanding the address, and I guess removing packet fragmenting while they're already changing the fields. Why not do it right, cause at least it gets done that way. There have been other huge migrations pulled off in networking. HTTP->HTTPS is the first that comes to mind. Extra layer of security, no other changes. Browsers slowly made users more and more wary of unsecured sites, and it became easier for site admins to obtain SSL certs. Once plain HTTP was finally made uncommon, versions of SSL/TLS still got upgraded slowly. They also avoided making it too flexible and turning into a fragmented mess like email or XMPP, i.e. browsers strongly avoid self-signed certs and started banning old versions.

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago

I agree. Instead of just making v4 addresses bigger (and related services around the protocol as well - ICMP, DNS, ...) a committee spawned jack of all trades, master of none IPv6 incompatible with current IPv4 stack.

bauruine 3y ago
IPv6 is compatible with IPv4 there are millions of devices with only an IPv6 address that work just fine.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  No, I only have a v4 address with my ISP and cannot use a v6-only device at home.
  - bauruine 3y ago
    IPv6 is backwards compatible to IPv4 but not the other way around. If you have a solution how to address a 128bit IPv6 address with the 32bits available on v4 I'm sure many people are eager to talk to you. It's just not possible.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      With a 6-to-4 gateway then yeah. But at that point you're using v4.
      - Dagger2 3y ago
        How do you expect compatibility with v4 protocols/software/hardware/routers/ISPs to work without using v4? That's a serious question. Do you have a way for this to work? Because I don't think it's possible (for fundamental reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle), and it would be extremely unfair to criticize the designers of v6 for not fixing an unfixable problem.

p1mrx 3y ago

> Cloudflare public DNS is 1.1.1.1. If I switch to ipv6, I get to use 2606:4700:4700::1111. You telling me that's an upgrade? The concept of vanity IPv4 addresses was invented in 2009, when Google acquired 8.8.8.0/24 from Level3. This is an emergent feature of a small, densely packed address space. IPv6 had existed for a decade (EDIT: not two decades) by that point, so you can't really blame the designers. Sprint controls 2600::, probably by accident, but they're not doing anything interesting with it.

hot_gril 3y ago
That's true, but even the less memorable v4 addresses are easier to deal with and nicer on the eyes. And on a LAN with a NAT, you typically get memorable addresses like 192.168.1.2. Maybe the bigger issue was trying to get rid of NAT. People don't want every local network device to have a public IP and have to trust that the router's v6 firewall will do its job.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > People don't want every local network device to have a public IP I absolutely don't want this. But as I understand it, I can avoid this by assigning my machines the IPv6 nonroutable addresses fe80::/64. They're the equivalent of 192.168.* and 10.*
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    Same as the firewall, it's fine if it's done right. But does every machine get link-local v6 addresses by default? My Mac is set to "automatic," which I assume asks the router. Even if I use link-local, does every router (even crappy ones) respect the no-forward rule? This is along with several other aspects of my network changing to use v6. Meanwhile, if someone sends a v4 packet with TCP port 22 to my router, it can't tell where to forward it even if it wanted to. It takes effort to do that, namely a port forwarding config.
    - JohnFen 3y ago

bell-cot 3y ago

Yep. It's as if they didn't understand that ~nobody would want to leave the great old IPv4 Club (packed with all your friends, and everyone who you'd want to meet) for the shoddy new IPv6 Club (with ~zero people there, probably nobody you know, and good luck trying to get a waiter's attention). And also pay for memberships in both clubs during the vague "eventually" transition period.

unethical_ban 3y ago

Yes. Also, any change to the protocol was going to be a massive shift regarding network hardware. It wasn't ever possible to slap a few more bytes onto the address. If you're going to make a monumentap shift, why not do it right?

JohnFen 3y ago
> If you're going to make a monumentap shift, why not do it right? yes, that was the argument from the very beginning, and it's not without merit. I disagree with it, because it's making a monumental shift into one that is even more monumental and increases resistance to making the change at all. But who knows? Both sides of this argument are just speculating.
hot_gril 3y ago
It would still be a much smaller shift if they focused on only expanding the address, and I guess removing packet fragmenting while they're already changing the fields. Why not do it right, cause at least it gets done that way. There have been other huge migrations pulled off in networking. HTTP->HTTPS is the first that comes to mind. Extra layer of security, no other changes. Browsers slowly made users more and more wary of unsecured sites, and it became easier for site admins to obtain SSL certs. Once plain HTTP was finally made uncommon, versions of SSL/TLS still got upgraded slowly. They also avoided making it too flexible and turning into a fragmented mess like email or XMPP, i.e. browsers strongly avoid self-signed certs and started banning old versions.