4 ms·

I despise pointless recency trolling on articles on this site, but I will note, somewhat sheepishly, this seems to have been written in or shortly after 2002, a

by gjvc 3y ago

I despise pointless recency trolling on articles on this site, but I will note, somewhat sheepishly, this seems to have been written in or shortly after 2002, a solid twenty years ago... and how has the situation improved since then?

OJFord 3y ago
It is interesting or ironic that the article's not actually dated (afaict), given the insistence on/fairly unusual and specific style of dating everything that's referenced within. 'As of 2002.11' within the text is the only hint I noticed, which doesn't actually mean it was written in November 2002, but in practice probably does (at least that sentence).
- veave 3y ago
  Last-Modified Sat, 02 Aug 2003 14:27:40 GMT
- isp 3y ago
  archive.org has a snapshot from 2002-12-03, as further evidence that it was written on or around 2002-11. https://web.archive.org/web/20021203075817/https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://web.archive.org/web/20021203075817/https://cr.yp.to/...
- dgellow 3y ago
  Earliest version in the internet archive is from December 3 2002
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
Old devices failed, new devices "just work" with IPv6, corporate environments are slow to change, until they're forced to. The "internet companies" have moved on to IPv6, but the "non-internet companies" are still stuck on ipv4 only (so google and cnn work, but your local steelworks is stuck on ipv4)
dexen 3y ago
>how has the situation improved since then? It is gradually becoming acceptable to dismiss IPv6 and suggest searching for a modern, practically minded alternative. Important first step in untangling the mess. Naturally opinions vary as to what exactly would constitute modern. Common complaint is the significant mixing of OSI layers, in particular application level concerns like significant baggage of encryption & authentication. And then there's my pet peeve of BSD Sockets API incompatibility which was introduced accidentally.
Symbiote 3y ago
There used to be a form response people would post in discussions about ending spam or similar. Something like Your proposed anti-spam measure wouldn't work because - [ ] it assumes mail administrators operate in good faith - [X] it assumes all systems can be upgraded in a timely manner - [ ] ... We could probably have the same for IPv6. The proposed method - [ ] for an alternative to IPv6 - [X] to avoid the transition to IPv6 - [ ] to allow us to keep using IPv4 indefinitely would not work because - [X] it would require replacing all the hardware and updating operating systems anyway - [ ] it does not expand the address space to the extent required - [ ] etc.
- supertrope 3y ago
  Also NAT - [ ] is not a firewall - [ ] does not provide any additional privacy over IPV6 privacy extensions
- hosteur 3y ago
  All relevant hardware and OS has been replaced since this was written.
minimaul 3y ago
Half of the big four ISPs in the UK provide IPv6 now (eg BT, Sky). Full dual stack or something like v4 CGNAT + native v6 is practical and works well where available. Big CDNs and content providers typically support v6 - eg Apple does, Netflix does, Google does, the big CDNs like Cloudfront, Fastly, Cloudflare do. Apple requires app store apps to function on IPv6 only networks since 2016. The holdbacks are smaller ISPs, ISPs with big legacy v4 allocations, and businesses. I see more pushback from MSPs etc on IPv6 (and practices like disabling it completely) than any other sector. edit: for an ISP that enables IPv6, the majority of their traffic will pretty much immediately be over it, as a result of the big CDNs and content providers supporting it. This reduces load on compatibility mechanisms like CGNAT, which is nice too.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  > Apple requires app store apps to function on IPv6 only networks since 2016. Oooh, I think that's really big. That basically forces every app company to make sure their main domain at least has an AAAA record that goes somewhere. I think Apple could force IPv6 adoption alone by extending this policy... An iPhone update could change the behaviour to only connect to a new wifi network if there is working ipv6 connectivity. "new" would be defined as any network whose mac address is not currently in Apples geolocation database. That would mean anyone getting a new broadband connection or router would see it as not working unless it had IPv6. Perhaps you can have an override - eg. "Use this legacy network anyway this time (some apps may not work properly)".
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    What would be the upside to Apple for this? Apple has a vested interest in IPv6 working on mobile, but benefits nothing from disabling IPv4.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      If they can ensure most Apple devices have IPv6 connectivity, there are a bunch of device-to-device connectivity benefits. For example, they can do video calling without having to host expensive proxy/STUN/TURN servers. Peer-to-peer data distribution and storage starts to make sense. Peer to peer gaming stops requiring server infrastructure. It also means that typically all the other devices in a users home will be able to get IPv6 - so they can for example continue to remote control your Apple TV even if you walk a little out of wifi range. Sure - for any IPv6 feature they build, they will need IPv4/proxied fallback. But if they can make sure 90% of users use IPv6 and direct connections, then the money and user experience costs of having to run the fallback servers becomes manageable.
p1mrx 3y ago
> how has the situation improved since then? "Nobody will join your IPv6 network if it can't talk to Google, CNN, etc." IPv6 networks can now talk to Google and CNN, for instance.
- Dagger2 3y ago
  And every other site. I don't even have a v4 address on my desktop. So why are we still dredging up this article when the problems have been solved?

by gjvc 3y ago

OJFord 3y ago

It is interesting or ironic that the article's not actually dated (afaict), given the insistence on/fairly unusual and specific style of dating everything that's referenced within. 'As of 2002.11' within the text is the only hint I noticed, which doesn't actually mean it was written in November 2002, but in practice probably does (at least that sentence).

veave 3y ago
Last-Modified Sat, 02 Aug 2003 14:27:40 GMT
isp 3y ago
archive.org has a snapshot from 2002-12-03, as further evidence that it was written on or around 2002-11. https://web.archive.org/web/20021203075817/https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://web.archive.org/web/20021203075817/https://cr.yp.to/...
dgellow 3y ago
Earliest version in the internet archive is from December 3 2002

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

Old devices failed, new devices "just work" with IPv6, corporate environments are slow to change, until they're forced to. The "internet companies" have moved on to IPv6, but the "non-internet companies" are still stuck on ipv4 only (so google and cnn work, but your local steelworks is stuck on ipv4)

dexen 3y ago

>how has the situation improved since then? It is gradually becoming acceptable to dismiss IPv6 and suggest searching for a modern, practically minded alternative. Important first step in untangling the mess. Naturally opinions vary as to what exactly would constitute modern. Common complaint is the significant mixing of OSI layers, in particular application level concerns like significant baggage of encryption & authentication. And then there's my pet peeve of BSD Sockets API incompatibility which was introduced accidentally.

Symbiote 3y ago

There used to be a form response people would post in discussions about ending spam or similar. Something like Your proposed anti-spam measure wouldn't work because - [ ] it assumes mail administrators operate in good faith - [X] it assumes all systems can be upgraded in a timely manner - [ ] ... We could probably have the same for IPv6. The proposed method - [ ] for an alternative to IPv6 - [X] to avoid the transition to IPv6 - [ ] to allow us to keep using IPv4 indefinitely would not work because - [X] it would require replacing all the hardware and updating operating systems anyway - [ ] it does not expand the address space to the extent required - [ ] etc.

supertrope 3y ago
Also NAT - [ ] is not a firewall - [ ] does not provide any additional privacy over IPV6 privacy extensions
hosteur 3y ago
All relevant hardware and OS has been replaced since this was written.

minimaul 3y ago

Half of the big four ISPs in the UK provide IPv6 now (eg BT, Sky). Full dual stack or something like v4 CGNAT + native v6 is practical and works well where available. Big CDNs and content providers typically support v6 - eg Apple does, Netflix does, Google does, the big CDNs like Cloudfront, Fastly, Cloudflare do. Apple requires app store apps to function on IPv6 only networks since 2016. The holdbacks are smaller ISPs, ISPs with big legacy v4 allocations, and businesses. I see more pushback from MSPs etc on IPv6 (and practices like disabling it completely) than any other sector. edit: for an ISP that enables IPv6, the majority of their traffic will pretty much immediately be over it, as a result of the big CDNs and content providers supporting it. This reduces load on compatibility mechanisms like CGNAT, which is nice too.

londons_explore 3y ago
> Apple requires app store apps to function on IPv6 only networks since 2016. Oooh, I think that's really big. That basically forces every app company to make sure their main domain at least has an AAAA record that goes somewhere. I think Apple could force IPv6 adoption alone by extending this policy... An iPhone update could change the behaviour to only connect to a new wifi network if there is working ipv6 connectivity. "new" would be defined as any network whose mac address is not currently in Apples geolocation database. That would mean anyone getting a new broadband connection or router would see it as not working unless it had IPv6. Perhaps you can have an override - eg. "Use this legacy network anyway this time (some apps may not work properly)".
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  What would be the upside to Apple for this? Apple has a vested interest in IPv6 working on mobile, but benefits nothing from disabling IPv4.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    If they can ensure most Apple devices have IPv6 connectivity, there are a bunch of device-to-device connectivity benefits. For example, they can do video calling without having to host expensive proxy/STUN/TURN servers. Peer-to-peer data distribution and storage starts to make sense. Peer to peer gaming stops requiring server infrastructure. It also means that typically all the other devices in a users home will be able to get IPv6 - so they can for example continue to remote control your Apple TV even if you walk a little out of wifi range. Sure - for any IPv6 feature they build, they will need IPv4/proxied fallback. But if they can make sure 90% of users use IPv6 and direct connections, then the money and user experience costs of having to run the fallback servers becomes manageable.

p1mrx 3y ago

> how has the situation improved since then? "Nobody will join your IPv6 network if it can't talk to Google, CNN, etc." IPv6 networks can now talk to Google and CNN, for instance.

Dagger2 3y ago
And every other site. I don't even have a v4 address on my desktop. So why are we still dredging up this article when the problems have been solved?