3 ms·
> I can't `ping ::ffff:192.168.0.1` and have it ping my router. How would that even work in theory? How would a ('legacy'?) host that only understands the 32-
by throw0101b 3y ago
> I can't `ping ::ffff:192.168.0.1` and have it ping my router.
How would that even work in theory?
How would a ('legacy'?) host that only understands the 32-bit data structure of IPv4 addresses talk to a >32-bit data structure IPv6 addressed host?
- FuriouslyAdrift 3y agoIf it truly encapsulated IPv4, then there wouldn't be two stacks. It would be one stack and legacy devices could snip the xtra bits (or have it done for them via a router).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- icedchai 3y agoI'm skeptical. How would the legacy device V4 understand the "extra bits"? How would this work on the same subnet (no router)?
- FuriouslyAdrift 3y agoIf it can't natively (by creating a new networking stack), then a router would have to re-write the packet. Endpoint dvices should not be direct peering (security). Always go through either a passthrough inspection device or router.
- icedchai 3y agoEndpoint devices peering directly is how things work on most small networks. What you describe would cause more problems than it solves.
- growse 3y ago> (or have it done for them via a router) And then we are back to NAT...
- rnhmjoj 3y agoYou need a translator, i.e. a middle host with dual IPv4/IPv6 stack that can convert an IPv4 packet to an IPv6 packet and v.v. By the way, it's not just theoretical, it exists and it has been standardised, see https://nicmx.github.io/Jool/en/intro-xlat.html#ipv4ipv6-translation https://nicmx.github.io/Jool/en/intro-xlat.html#ipv4ipv6-tra...