3 ms·

I think the reason this never gains any user mindshare while other technologies like 802.11<x> or 5G do is because ipv6 doesn’t actually change anything about t

I think the reason this never gains any user mindshare while other technologies like 802.11<x> or 5G do is because ipv6 doesn’t actually change anything about the user experience. So why would they bother putting it on the marketing material? I think that’s the chief reason it’s failed to catch on at any meaningful rate. It may be good overall or have long-term effects, but if any one typical use asked you, “what will be different for me if I buy this?” there’s no answer.

Galanwe 3y ago
> I think the reason this never gains any user mindshare [...] is ipv6 doesn’t actually change anything about the user experience Lots of purely technical things which have no impact on user experience take over old technologies. The issue with IPv6 is that it has no visible impact on users -_and_ it's a major paradigm shift in terms of complexity and addressing scheme compared to v4. Every year I secretly hope some major consortium with traction release "IPv4 2.0" with 8 bytes and get done with it.
- p1mrx 3y ago
  > release "IPv4 2.0" with 8 bytes and get done with it. I think you mean "get started with it"? It's not easy to win against a competitor with a 25 year head start.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > Every year I secretly hope some major consortium with traction release "IPv4 2.0" with 8 bytes and get done with it. How exactly would this work? IPv4 data structures have four bytes/octets (4B) for addresses. So how do you fit 8B of addresses in 4B structures? You don't. So you have to update every network element—host (desktop, laptop, mobile, embedded), router, switch, firewall—to have a new data structure (and maybe new function/system calls, as the old ones assume the old structures). So all devices have to have updated network stacks, including long-lived ones that sometimes are not touched for a decade+. And not just pure networking code: anything that touches (e.g.) DNS as well, as A records are 4B-only as well, so you need a new record type and deploy new DNS server and resolver code everywhere. But of course if you have a 4B-only network elements/devices, they cannot talk to 8B-only devices/services, so you have to create translation mechanisms because some devices may not yet have the update 8B-capable network stack. And sometimes an 8B network is an island in a sea of 4B, so you have to have tunneling. Of course some may have both 4B and 8B, and want to talk to something has also has 4B and 8B, so now you have to have code for source/destination selection. Those are the exact same challenges as with the IPv6 roll-out. And of course "IPv4 1.0" continues to work, so what motivation is there for going to your "2.0"—just like what motivation is/was there for going to IPv6 when IPv4 is/was 'working'? See "TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple Proposal for Internet Addressing and Routing" for part of the discussion from back in the day (1993): * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1347 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1347
  - Galanwe 3y ago
    I never said moving from 4 to 8 bytes would require less changes that IPv6. The problem of adoption with IPv6 is not technical. It's that IPv6 changes radically how we thing about IP networks. IPv6 explodes all existing concepts of DHCP, DNS, NAT, etc. You have an entire generation of network, system and software engineers that have no clue at how IPv6 work, no existing infrastructure to learn it, and somehow expect that it's going to stick. I say, let's solve the 90% that is really problematic with IPv4, being the number of adresses, and the rest is moved to some other standard.
    - throw0101a 3y ago
      > It's that IPv6 changes radically how we thing about IP networks. I never understood this line of thinking. You put your Layer 4 bits into a Layer 3 packet with a larger address space, then stuff that into a Layer 2 frame, and send it off onto the wire/air waves. You can have DHCP(v6) if you wish. DNS is only different with a new record type (AAAA). NAT-y stuff can still be done, but stateful firewalls are not different. The fact that you can—if you wish—have less infrastructure (no DHCP server, no NAT (but still SPI)) should make it easier to deal with, not harder.
      - Galanwe 3y ago
        > The fact that you can—if you wish—have less infrastructure should make it easier to deal with, not harder. Look, I don't know what to tell you, honestly. I tend to think I'm fairly more litterate in networking than most software engineers. I am no network engineer, but I have spent most of the last decade writing networking software, including layer 2 VPNs. I am also genuinely interested in understanding new tech. Yet, IPv6 _terrifies_ me. Every 2 years or so I'm in the mood of learning it. And every time, after reading docs on the subject, I'm like "Nope, I'll wait til I retire to get my IPv6 PhD". Maybe that's just a matter of finding a proper, accessible documentation. I always end up thinking "okay so that's a total big bang I have to rethink entirely everything I know about L3".
        3y ago
usr1106 3y ago
In data centers we are used to that IPv6 is cheaper, IPv4 addresses cost real money. If IPv6 only were cheaper for consumers it would make a difference for them. But maybe that's really only relevant for routable static addresses and consumers typically don't need any. I understood e.g. T-Mobile US consumer subscriptions are IPv6 only already now. (Not living there, so from hearsay) It's just transparent to the customer via NAT64 where needed? And obviously all somewhat recent phones just work, so no logo required.
- bewaretheirs 3y ago
  > T-Mobile US consumer subscriptions are IPv6 only already now. I'm a T-Mobile US customer. This is correct - the only real address your phone gets is IPv6. I believe V4-only sites are reachable using 464XLAT (RFC6877, RFC7335) or equivalent.
  - highpost 3y ago
    Yes, T-Mobile is IPv6-native, but the gateways they provide for T-Mobile 5G Home Internet map to IPv4.

Galanwe 3y ago

> I think the reason this never gains any user mindshare [...] is ipv6 doesn’t actually change anything about the user experience Lots of purely technical things which have no impact on user experience take over old technologies. The issue with IPv6 is that it has no visible impact on users -_and_ it's a major paradigm shift in terms of complexity and addressing scheme compared to v4. Every year I secretly hope some major consortium with traction release "IPv4 2.0" with 8 bytes and get done with it.

p1mrx 3y ago
> release "IPv4 2.0" with 8 bytes and get done with it. I think you mean "get started with it"? It's not easy to win against a competitor with a 25 year head start.
throw0101a 3y ago
> Every year I secretly hope some major consortium with traction release "IPv4 2.0" with 8 bytes and get done with it. How exactly would this work? IPv4 data structures have four bytes/octets (4B) for addresses. So how do you fit 8B of addresses in 4B structures? You don't. So you have to update every network element—host (desktop, laptop, mobile, embedded), router, switch, firewall—to have a new data structure (and maybe new function/system calls, as the old ones assume the old structures). So all devices have to have updated network stacks, including long-lived ones that sometimes are not touched for a decade+. And not just pure networking code: anything that touches (e.g.) DNS as well, as A records are 4B-only as well, so you need a new record type and deploy new DNS server and resolver code everywhere. But of course if you have a 4B-only network elements/devices, they cannot talk to 8B-only devices/services, so you have to create translation mechanisms because some devices may not yet have the update 8B-capable network stack. And sometimes an 8B network is an island in a sea of 4B, so you have to have tunneling. Of course some may have both 4B and 8B, and want to talk to something has also has 4B and 8B, so now you have to have code for source/destination selection. Those are the exact same challenges as with the IPv6 roll-out. And of course "IPv4 1.0" continues to work, so what motivation is there for going to your "2.0"—just like what motivation is/was there for going to IPv6 when IPv4 is/was 'working'? See "TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple Proposal for Internet Addressing and Routing" for part of the discussion from back in the day (1993): * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1347 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1347
- Galanwe 3y ago
  I never said moving from 4 to 8 bytes would require less changes that IPv6. The problem of adoption with IPv6 is not technical. It's that IPv6 changes radically how we thing about IP networks. IPv6 explodes all existing concepts of DHCP, DNS, NAT, etc. You have an entire generation of network, system and software engineers that have no clue at how IPv6 work, no existing infrastructure to learn it, and somehow expect that it's going to stick. I say, let's solve the 90% that is really problematic with IPv4, being the number of adresses, and the rest is moved to some other standard.
  - throw0101a 3y ago
    > It's that IPv6 changes radically how we thing about IP networks. I never understood this line of thinking. You put your Layer 4 bits into a Layer 3 packet with a larger address space, then stuff that into a Layer 2 frame, and send it off onto the wire/air waves. You can have DHCP(v6) if you wish. DNS is only different with a new record type (AAAA). NAT-y stuff can still be done, but stateful firewalls are not different. The fact that you can—if you wish—have less infrastructure (no DHCP server, no NAT (but still SPI)) should make it easier to deal with, not harder.
    - Galanwe 3y ago
      > The fact that you can—if you wish—have less infrastructure should make it easier to deal with, not harder. Look, I don't know what to tell you, honestly. I tend to think I'm fairly more litterate in networking than most software engineers. I am no network engineer, but I have spent most of the last decade writing networking software, including layer 2 VPNs. I am also genuinely interested in understanding new tech. Yet, IPv6 _terrifies_ me. Every 2 years or so I'm in the mood of learning it. And every time, after reading docs on the subject, I'm like "Nope, I'll wait til I retire to get my IPv6 PhD". Maybe that's just a matter of finding a proper, accessible documentation. I always end up thinking "okay so that's a total big bang I have to rethink entirely everything I know about L3".
      - 3y ago

usr1106 3y ago

In data centers we are used to that IPv6 is cheaper, IPv4 addresses cost real money. If IPv6 only were cheaper for consumers it would make a difference for them. But maybe that's really only relevant for routable static addresses and consumers typically don't need any. I understood e.g. T-Mobile US consumer subscriptions are IPv6 only already now. (Not living there, so from hearsay) It's just transparent to the customer via NAT64 where needed? And obviously all somewhat recent phones just work, so no logo required.

bewaretheirs 3y ago
> T-Mobile US consumer subscriptions are IPv6 only already now. I'm a T-Mobile US customer. This is correct - the only real address your phone gets is IPv6. I believe V4-only sites are reachable using 464XLAT (RFC6877, RFC7335) or equivalent.
- highpost 3y ago
  Yes, T-Mobile is IPv6-native, but the gateways they provide for T-Mobile 5G Home Internet map to IPv4.