4 ms·

> Even if I turn off v4.0, I'm still reachable at the same address on v4.1. This is not the case with v6. That's the problem. That's not the problem. Being re

> Even if I turn off v4.0, I'm still reachable at the same address on v4.1. This is not the case with v6. That's the problem. That's not the problem. Being reachable "at the same address on v4.1" (or v6) does not mean that v4 hosts can reach you. In order for v4 hosts to reach you, you have to be doing v4, because v4 hosts will be sending you v4 packets. If you've turned off v4 then that won't work. It'll work if you leave v4 on... but then you're just doing dual stack, and v6 can do that too. The problem here is that you haven't realized that what you're describing is no different to v6's approach, just phrased differently.

hot_gril 3y ago
As far as I can tell, nearly every system has an ipv6 stack included, but they are often choosing not to enable it. So ipv6's adoption problem is no longer related to a lack of capabilities on hosts. Do you agree with that? Let's say every ipv6 stack we have today were instead playing by "ipv4.1"'s rules, meaning same addresses and routing as v4 (and possibly the same packet format as v6). Nobody is taking advantage of longer addresses yet, but the bits are there for later. This also means old DNS entries are still valid, and NATs are still common. What would stop many people from flipping on ipv4.1 mode?
- Dagger2 3y ago
  How is that not what we're already doing? Almost everyone with a v6 stack still has the exact same v4 address they had before, using the exact same routing as v4. Old DNS entries are still valid, NAT's still common. The only difference seems to be that some people are already making use of the bigger address space, rather than waiting. And that's surely a good thing? If you told everybody to wait until absolutely everything supported it, you'd be waiting forever, and you'd be giving up the benefits of having a larger address space available the entire time... and you don't have a way to force people to wait anyway, so that idea wouldn't even implementable in the first place.

hot_gril 3y ago

As far as I can tell, nearly every system has an ipv6 stack included, but they are often choosing not to enable it. So ipv6's adoption problem is no longer related to a lack of capabilities on hosts. Do you agree with that? Let's say every ipv6 stack we have today were instead playing by "ipv4.1"'s rules, meaning same addresses and routing as v4 (and possibly the same packet format as v6). Nobody is taking advantage of longer addresses yet, but the bits are there for later. This also means old DNS entries are still valid, and NATs are still common. What would stop many people from flipping on ipv4.1 mode?

Dagger2 3y ago
How is that not what we're already doing? Almost everyone with a v6 stack still has the exact same v4 address they had before, using the exact same routing as v4. Old DNS entries are still valid, NAT's still common. The only difference seems to be that some people are already making use of the bigger address space, rather than waiting. And that's surely a good thing? If you told everybody to wait until absolutely everything supported it, you'd be waiting forever, and you'd be giving up the benefits of having a larger address space available the entire time... and you don't have a way to force people to wait anyway, so that idea wouldn't even implementable in the first place.