4 ms·

Your 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 becaus

Your 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 ago
Send IP+ by tcp/443, the only working protocol right now.
p1mrx 3y ago
The 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 ago
    It wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's inelegant. Take a look at your Gmail headers for example.