4 ms·

When they need to solve the address space crisis, they can make a "v4.1" that's just v4 but with an expanded address space. Existing addresses and decimal forma

When they need to solve the address space crisis, they can make a "v4.1" that's just v4 but with an expanded address space. Existing addresses and decimal format stay; NAT DNS DHCP ARP etc stay mostly the same aside from supporting longer addresses. Cloudflare DNS is still 1.1.1.1, my private ip is 192.168.1.2, public 71.177.17.171, some new ISP hands out 11.127.13.121.143.356 when they run out of shorter addresses, life moves on. I know v6 supports NAT, but it was basically designed to remove it with the whole random addressing scheme, and that isn't necessary for solving this problem (idk if things were different in the 1990s).

icedchai 3y ago
You know this can't work without having the same issues as IPv6, right? Take a look at the IP headers.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  They'd have to expand the header in a backwards-incompatible way, yes. IPv6's issues don't all stem from that. Changing all the existing addresses, adding new special kinds of addrs, trying to ditch NAT, and maybe even changing the human-readable format of addrs created most of this resistance. Asking someone to go v6 is asking for a whole network redesign, with an end result that isn't exactly simpler. Swap in v4.1-compatible stuff and you'd be done. Sending to short address uses v4, sending to long uses v4.1.
  - icedchai 3y ago
    If you expand the header in a backwards-incompatible way, you have to upgrade all the routers and endpoints. You'd need to extend other protocols, like BGP and OSPF, to even route your "v4.1" prefixes. You'd have the exact same dual stack issues as you do with v6. Why bother? IPv6 is available today and has been here for over 20 years. The truth is it is actually simpler to deploy than v4. For example, the address format makes it easier to understand subnetting (because it's hex.) NAT is an abomination and we should be glad to see it go: end-to-end connectivity is how the internet is supposed to work. I remember the old days (the 90's) where we all had public IP addresses on our desktops. VPNs are much simpler: there's no potential for overlapping RFC-1918 addresses because v6 is globally unique. I could go on.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      The only reason v6 is dual stack is because they're changing all the existing addresses and routing. If you're only creating a second header format that everything is updated to support, it can be mostly unified. Routing tables etc would all shared. > end-to-end connectivity is how the internet is supposed to work This is the secondary motive of ipv6 that makes it not happen, cause not enough people agree with this statement. Most home and corporate users have little interest in outside connectivity, or when they do, it's easy to forward ports. And it's important how even the cheapest router or least savvy user won't accidentally expose local devices to inbound connections; see another user's note on unsafe defaults https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37765946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37765946 If you personally would like to go NAT-free on your network, still all you need is plentiful addresses like v4.1, but it wouldn't be the default that everything is optimized around.
      - WorldMaker 3y ago
        > The only reason v6 is dual stack is because they're changing all the existing addresses and routing. If you're only creating a second header format that everything is updated to support, it can be mostly unified. Routing tables etc would all shared. A new header format is a new version of IP. That's how it was designed. That's the compatibility story of IP. There is no way (there never was a way) to change the IPv4 header format without incrementing the version number. There is no way to not create a "second" stack when you increment the version number. Different versions are always different "stacks". They are always going to have different mechanics and need different hardware. All the other things that IPv6 changed didn't make it a different stack. Making a version 6 at all made a new stack and all the other things were changed to throw in additional improvements (and make things simpler) since there needed to be a different stack anyway. If version 6 had changed "just" the header it still would have been just as hard to upgrade to, but people would have even fewer reasons to upgrade.
        hot_gril 3y ago
        You can call it a separate stack if you want, either way, the difficulty of going v6 comes from having totally separate addresses and routes as opposed to sharing everything. Basically every system out there is already capable of handling ipv6 headers, but they don't use it.

icedchai 3y ago

You know this can't work without having the same issues as IPv6, right? Take a look at the IP headers.

hot_gril 3y ago
They'd have to expand the header in a backwards-incompatible way, yes. IPv6's issues don't all stem from that. Changing all the existing addresses, adding new special kinds of addrs, trying to ditch NAT, and maybe even changing the human-readable format of addrs created most of this resistance. Asking someone to go v6 is asking for a whole network redesign, with an end result that isn't exactly simpler. Swap in v4.1-compatible stuff and you'd be done. Sending to short address uses v4, sending to long uses v4.1.
- icedchai 3y ago
  If you expand the header in a backwards-incompatible way, you have to upgrade all the routers and endpoints. You'd need to extend other protocols, like BGP and OSPF, to even route your "v4.1" prefixes. You'd have the exact same dual stack issues as you do with v6. Why bother? IPv6 is available today and has been here for over 20 years. The truth is it is actually simpler to deploy than v4. For example, the address format makes it easier to understand subnetting (because it's hex.) NAT is an abomination and we should be glad to see it go: end-to-end connectivity is how the internet is supposed to work. I remember the old days (the 90's) where we all had public IP addresses on our desktops. VPNs are much simpler: there's no potential for overlapping RFC-1918 addresses because v6 is globally unique. I could go on.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    The only reason v6 is dual stack is because they're changing all the existing addresses and routing. If you're only creating a second header format that everything is updated to support, it can be mostly unified. Routing tables etc would all shared. > end-to-end connectivity is how the internet is supposed to work This is the secondary motive of ipv6 that makes it not happen, cause not enough people agree with this statement. Most home and corporate users have little interest in outside connectivity, or when they do, it's easy to forward ports. And it's important how even the cheapest router or least savvy user won't accidentally expose local devices to inbound connections; see another user's note on unsafe defaults https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37765946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37765946 If you personally would like to go NAT-free on your network, still all you need is plentiful addresses like v4.1, but it wouldn't be the default that everything is optimized around.
    - WorldMaker 3y ago
      > The only reason v6 is dual stack is because they're changing all the existing addresses and routing. If you're only creating a second header format that everything is updated to support, it can be mostly unified. Routing tables etc would all shared. A new header format is a new version of IP. That's how it was designed. That's the compatibility story of IP. There is no way (there never was a way) to change the IPv4 header format without incrementing the version number. There is no way to not create a "second" stack when you increment the version number. Different versions are always different "stacks". They are always going to have different mechanics and need different hardware. All the other things that IPv6 changed didn't make it a different stack. Making a version 6 at all made a new stack and all the other things were changed to throw in additional improvements (and make things simpler) since there needed to be a different stack anyway. If version 6 had changed "just" the header it still would have been just as hard to upgrade to, but people would have even fewer reasons to upgrade.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        You can call it a separate stack if you want, either way, the difficulty of going v6 comes from having totally separate addresses and routes as opposed to sharing everything. Basically every system out there is already capable of handling ipv6 headers, but they don't use it.