2 ms·
This is an "IPv6" network that does not allow for more users. The IPv4 network space is already depleted. This is why mobile ISPs, Indian ISPs etc. are all dual
by Macha 3y ago
This is an "IPv6" network that does not allow for more users. The IPv4 network space is already depleted. This is why mobile ISPs, Indian ISPs etc. are all dual stack with CGNAT for IPv4.
Perhaps you meant to suggest that they should own 1.1.1.1::/64 or 1.1.1.1/128 (or 1:1:1:1::/64)?
Even if it's the latter case, both the actual ::ffff:1.2.3.4 (or it's predecessor ::1.2.3.4) have the problem that some middle box receives a packet for 1.1.1.1::abcd:1234, doesn't understand the header the abcd:1234 portion is encoded in, throws it away, and the router at 1.1.1.1 receives a packet which is destined for some unknown device behind the router with no info for how to get the packet to that device.
- hot_gril 3y agoYes, it wouldn't allow more users, which would've been fine back then. They'd focus on getting everyone onto the v6 protocol first, then open up the new addresses for use. That's the transition period that never happened.
- Macha 3y agoThe only motivation for the ISPs etc., who you need to get onboard, is to get more users. This is why IPv6 adoption has been soaring in the last 3-4 years when there's large new use cases that cannot economically get addresses in the volume they would require and didn't happen when IPv4 addresses were more freely available. The only other way to get them to invest in alternatives to IPv4 before IPv4 stopped meeting their business needs would have been via regulation.