5 ms·

What is your solution?

• speedgoose 3y ago
  Not OP nor a recognised network expert but here is my suggestion: IPv10. The next IP version number that is unassigned, that is conveniently 4+6. Basically something that is not breaking compatibility with IPv4 and doesn’t require those dual network stacks nonsense.
  • cdchn 3y ago
    How do you not break compatibility with IPv4 while also getting more bytes in the address?
    • sambazi 3y ago
      country codes </s>
    • speedgoose 3y ago
      Well again I’m not a network expert but perhaps we could look at the 240.0.0.0/4 reserved for future use block and add more address bytes in the payload or something. It’s not going to be elegant but IPv6 is kinda elegant and failed.
      • growse 3y ago
        This is the most hilarious "I don't understand anything about the problem, therefore I don't understand how it's hard" comment I've seen this week. > perhaps we could look at the 240.0.0.0/4 reserved for future use block What's the current rate of v4 address space consumption? How long will this block last? > and add more address bytes in the payload or something. This is, by definition, not backward compatible.
        • speedgoose 3y ago
          I may not have been clear enough in my suggestion. The idea would be to use this unused block as a special block. Not to fill it up with normal IPv4 allocations. See my suggestion as some kind of NAT-PT at scale. With a better marketing name and user experience. The problem is indeed hard because no one manage to find a solution at scale since 3 decades.
          • growse 3y ago
            > The problem is indeed hard because no one manage to find a solution at scale since 3 decades. The problem is hard because despite everyone's wishes, it's got nothing to do with technology. All migrations are about economics and incentives, IPv6's qualities as a design (it's a long, long way from perfect, but I'd argue that it's good enough) are irrelevant.
          • shawabawa3 3y ago
            No matter what change you make, or how you make it, if you are making more than 4B addresses routable then any existing IPv4 device will not be able to route some addresses, so you will have caused a split in the internet This is a fundamental and unresolvable problem with "making it backwards compatible"
            • speedgoose 3y ago
              Wouldn't NAT be an existing and well used solution to this problem?
              • superluserdo 3y ago
                NAT is the problem that IPv6 fixes. Think about the parent comment >if you are making more than 4B addresses routable then any existing IPv4 device will not be able to route some addresses, so you will have caused a split in the internet This has basically already happened. We've massively extended IPv4 by stuffing extra address bits into the router's port number, and it means that any two devices behind NATs can't directly route to each other.
    • hkt 3y ago
      Maybe just don't? Let it be IPv4 with more bits, the software is already there so dual stacking isn't so bad, adoption might actually be quick if people didn't have to learn much to implement it.
      • superluserdo 3y ago
        >Let it be IPv4 with more bits Then it's not IPv4 and is not compatible with IPv4.
        • hkt 3y ago
          It'd be compatible (or trivially close) to most of the software that is required to make it work. Which is to say the cost of implementation would be low - not the case with ipv6.
• coldpie 3y ago
  > What is your solution? Understand very little about the problem space and complain about the best-compromise solution that the people who do know what they're talking about came up with. It's a very comfortable position to be in, I recommend it to everyone.
  • TZubiri 3y ago
    I mean there's several existing solutions, NAT, ipv4 rationing, ip leasing, coexisting with ipv6. Things look fine to me, the reality is dual stack, a full ipv6 transition is idyllic and pointless. I'm certainly not the first ipv6 critic, and you may notice the nuance that I didn't advocate for not using it, I just don't advocate dropping ipv4. Furthermore it doesn't matter if I advocate it or not, like a train ipv4 keeps going, it's only ipv6 that is advocated.