4 ms·
Sure there’s a way. Define a standard way to encapsulate an “IPv4-with-more-bits” packet (let’s call it “IP+”) inside an IPv4 packet. When a router supporting
by comex 3y ago
Sure there’s a way. Define a standard way to encapsulate an “IPv4-with-more-bits” packet (let’s call it “IP+”) inside an IPv4 packet. When a router supporting IP+ forwards an IP+ packet to a router that doesn’t support it (assume there’s some way for routers to learn whether their peers support it), it wraps it in an IPv4 packet. When a router receives an IP+ packet wrapped in an IPv4 packet, in unwraps it. In this way, as long as both sides of a connection belong to LANs that support IP+ internally, they can communicate with each other even if some or all of the Internet routers in between only support IPv4.
But even if that weren’t a thing, even if you did need all the routers to be replaced, “IPv4 with more bits” would still be better. After all, it’s been decades - the hardware has been replaced. If it were a seamless incremental upgrade, just a switch to flip that enabled “more bits support” and didn’t break anything, then ISPs would have enabled it even when there was little short-term benefit. By now, practically all of the Internet would support it. Instead it’s an entirely separate network, with entirely separate configuration, which historically had a high tendency to break things. No surprise that even today, many people just don’t bother with it.
- fulafel 3y agoYour idea sounds a lot like the 6to4 transition mechanism that was used for several years before it was phased out. It won't "just work" on many networks because they firewall off non-tcp/udp protocols but otherwise it served pretty well.
- oneshtein 3y agoSend IP+ by tcp/443, the only working protocol right now.
- p1mrx 3y agoThe biggest problem with 6to4 is that the anycast gateways (192.88.99.0/24 and 2002::/16) often go to a different network than the one you're paying for transit, so you can't just turn it on for production traffic and expect it to work. The anycast gateways are only used when communicating between 6to4 and native IPv6 addresses, so if 2002::/16 had been the only IPv6 address space, then it would have been more reliable, but then we'd be stuck with IPv4-based IPv6 addresses forever.
- comex 3y ago> but then we'd be stuck with IPv4-based IPv6 addresses forever. Yep, but would that have been so bad? Certainly with IPv6's 128-bit addresses, there would still be enough space to go around… Though admittedly, when I see "IPv4 with more bits" hypotheticals, they often involve smaller addresses than IPv6.
- p1mrx 3y agoIt wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's inelegant. Take a look at your Gmail headers for example.