6 ms·

My reason: IPv6 failed to fulfill its original objective.

by commandersaki 3y ago

apearson 3y ago
Which is?
- commandersaki 3y ago
  Literally the one job it had, to prevent address depletion on the Internet. Just to be clear, we're talking about the Internet here, and not some IPv6 island.
  - orangeboats 3y ago
    I don't get you. We are running dual stack for the time being, and indeed we cannot solve address depletion this way, but that doesn't mean we are doing it forever. At some point -- maybe when 60%, 70%, or 80%, or 90% of the Internet is running on IPv6 -- Internet services at a large scale will begin to deem IPv4 as a liability, and drop IPv4 support along with the addresses they are holding. I am not talking about a distant future either. We already have IPv6-only servers up and running, mine included, and we haven't even reached the 50% milestone. In a way, the existence of IPv6-only servers meant that IPv6 is _already_ preventing IPv4 address depletion, because those servers would otherwise have to compete for IPv4 addresses with the other servers too. Furthermore, I find "I hate IPv6 because it hasn't eliminated IPv4" a really weird opinion (it's not exactly what you said, but it is how I interpret your first few comments combined) because it's sort of recursive: hate IPv6 -> continues to use IPv4 -> IPv6 is unable to eliminate IPv4 -> hate IPv6??? Perhaps you can elaborate on it further, but I don't think it will be agreeable either way.
    - commandersaki 3y ago
      IPng was meant to avert the IPv4 address exhaustion crisis. IPv6 was chosen as the way forward. A transition group (ngtrans) was formed and instead of taking the time to consider how to integrate IPv6 into the existing landscape it decided to create a separate island. We now have a hodgepodge of transition plans and umpteen different transition mechanisms of which none make IPv6 first class. What do I mean by making IPv6 first class? Basically a transition plan/mechanism where IPv6 is interoperable with IPv4. This was one of the primary considerations at the time when IPng were still deciding, where other contenders at the time had a better transition plan story. Instead the IPng group chose the technology that didn't have any transition plan because they liked the shiny new features that were irrelevant to averting the address exhaustion situation. Their failure to address the transition back then is why we're in this IPv6 adoption bottleneck.
      - Dagger2 3y ago
        Can you tell us what the better transition story was? As far as I can tell, v6 is already approximately as interoperable with v4 as it's possible to be. I don't get your claim that it's a separate island at all. It's not. This machine is v6-only and isn't on an island, it has full access to the entire Internet.
        commandersaki 3y ago
        TUBA had a sane transition story [1] although I do not know of the mailing lists these were discussed (probably done in in-person IETF meetings). For IPv6 transition mechanism you can look into the ngtrans mailing list regarding AutoIPv6 which is basically an extension of 6to4 but instead of connecting IPv6 networks over IPv4 it would extend to IPv4 hosts. There's also an archive link in my post history which you can lookup (on phone). As for current v6 being interoperable with v4, that is patently false. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tuba-transition https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tuba-transi...
        Dagger2 3y ago
        Hm... according to that draft, TUBA's transition story is dual stack, which is the same as the main transition approach for v6. How come it's sane for TUBA but not sane when v6 does it? > As for current v6 being interoperable with v4, that is patently false. This machine is v6-only and can reach the entire Internet, including v4-only hosts. It clearly has more interoperability than you're claiming or this wouldn't be possible.
        commandersaki 3y ago
        Interoperability would be the ability to use either IPv4 or IPv6 and talk to each other seamlessly. This is clearly not the case for IPv4 clients talking to IPv6 servers. This is clearly not the case for IPv6 servers accepting IPv4 connections. As for TUBA, the transition plan incorporated tunneling, with a bit more thought put into this we could've had something similar to AutoIPv6. That document was just a starting point and outlined some important aspects of the criteria such as low administrative overhead for transitioning IPv4 networks to IPng, something which IPv6 falls completely flat on.
patmorgan23 3y ago
Looks pretty successful to me. They increased the address size. People are lazy though and decided to keep v4.
- commandersaki 3y ago
  Successful would be when we don't need to rely on IPv4 addresses anymore. IPv6 hasn't done anything remotely successful in this realm.
  - apearson 3y ago
    I have deployed personal servers that are IPv6 only that's at least a handful of v4 addresses saved / v6 addresses used
    - commandersaki 3y ago
      That's great, let me know when you can use the Internet without any IPv4 addresses involved (including upstream).
      - apearson 3y ago
        https://google.com/ https://google.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://www.netflix.com/ https://www.netflix.com/ https://www.espn.com/ https://www.espn.com/ Not sure what you mean you can't use the Internet without IPv4. Yes some sites won't work but some sites don't work with https but that doesn't mean you can't use https on the internet
        commandersaki 3y ago
        All those sites you mention work with IPv4 just fine. When you shut off IPv4 in favour of IPv6 you shut off access to probably 70% of the Internet. Let's see what happens when you don't enable IPv6? Oh nothing... that's right, the Internet will remain working just fine. There's very little incentive to support IPv6 when all that is required to connect to the Internet is IPv4. Which comes to the fundamental issue with the deployment and transition with IPv6, it will always remain a second class citizen until we no longer need to rely on IPv4.

My reason: IPv6 failed to fulfill its original objective.

apearson 3y ago

Which is?

commandersaki 3y ago
Literally the one job it had, to prevent address depletion on the Internet. Just to be clear, we're talking about the Internet here, and not some IPv6 island.
- orangeboats 3y ago
  I don't get you. We are running dual stack for the time being, and indeed we cannot solve address depletion this way, but that doesn't mean we are doing it forever. At some point -- maybe when 60%, 70%, or 80%, or 90% of the Internet is running on IPv6 -- Internet services at a large scale will begin to deem IPv4 as a liability, and drop IPv4 support along with the addresses they are holding. I am not talking about a distant future either. We already have IPv6-only servers up and running, mine included, and we haven't even reached the 50% milestone. In a way, the existence of IPv6-only servers meant that IPv6 is _already_ preventing IPv4 address depletion, because those servers would otherwise have to compete for IPv4 addresses with the other servers too. Furthermore, I find "I hate IPv6 because it hasn't eliminated IPv4" a really weird opinion (it's not exactly what you said, but it is how I interpret your first few comments combined) because it's sort of recursive: hate IPv6 -> continues to use IPv4 -> IPv6 is unable to eliminate IPv4 -> hate IPv6??? Perhaps you can elaborate on it further, but I don't think it will be agreeable either way.
  - commandersaki 3y ago
    IPng was meant to avert the IPv4 address exhaustion crisis. IPv6 was chosen as the way forward. A transition group (ngtrans) was formed and instead of taking the time to consider how to integrate IPv6 into the existing landscape it decided to create a separate island. We now have a hodgepodge of transition plans and umpteen different transition mechanisms of which none make IPv6 first class. What do I mean by making IPv6 first class? Basically a transition plan/mechanism where IPv6 is interoperable with IPv4. This was one of the primary considerations at the time when IPng were still deciding, where other contenders at the time had a better transition plan story. Instead the IPng group chose the technology that didn't have any transition plan because they liked the shiny new features that were irrelevant to averting the address exhaustion situation. Their failure to address the transition back then is why we're in this IPv6 adoption bottleneck.
    - Dagger2 3y ago
      Can you tell us what the better transition story was? As far as I can tell, v6 is already approximately as interoperable with v4 as it's possible to be. I don't get your claim that it's a separate island at all. It's not. This machine is v6-only and isn't on an island, it has full access to the entire Internet.
      - commandersaki 3y ago
        TUBA had a sane transition story [1] although I do not know of the mailing lists these were discussed (probably done in in-person IETF meetings). For IPv6 transition mechanism you can look into the ngtrans mailing list regarding AutoIPv6 which is basically an extension of 6to4 but instead of connecting IPv6 networks over IPv4 it would extend to IPv4 hosts. There's also an archive link in my post history which you can lookup (on phone). As for current v6 being interoperable with v4, that is patently false. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tuba-transition https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tuba-transi...
        Dagger2 3y ago
        Hm... according to that draft, TUBA's transition story is dual stack, which is the same as the main transition approach for v6. How come it's sane for TUBA but not sane when v6 does it? > As for current v6 being interoperable with v4, that is patently false. This machine is v6-only and can reach the entire Internet, including v4-only hosts. It clearly has more interoperability than you're claiming or this wouldn't be possible.
        commandersaki 3y ago
        Interoperability would be the ability to use either IPv4 or IPv6 and talk to each other seamlessly. This is clearly not the case for IPv4 clients talking to IPv6 servers. This is clearly not the case for IPv6 servers accepting IPv4 connections. As for TUBA, the transition plan incorporated tunneling, with a bit more thought put into this we could've had something similar to AutoIPv6. That document was just a starting point and outlined some important aspects of the criteria such as low administrative overhead for transitioning IPv4 networks to IPng, something which IPv6 falls completely flat on.

patmorgan23 3y ago

Looks pretty successful to me. They increased the address size. People are lazy though and decided to keep v4.

commandersaki 3y ago
Successful would be when we don't need to rely on IPv4 addresses anymore. IPv6 hasn't done anything remotely successful in this realm.
- apearson 3y ago
  I have deployed personal servers that are IPv6 only that's at least a handful of v4 addresses saved / v6 addresses used
  - commandersaki 3y ago
    That's great, let me know when you can use the Internet without any IPv4 addresses involved (including upstream).
    - apearson 3y ago
      https://google.com/ https://google.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://www.netflix.com/ https://www.netflix.com/ https://www.espn.com/ https://www.espn.com/ Not sure what you mean you can't use the Internet without IPv4. Yes some sites won't work but some sites don't work with https but that doesn't mean you can't use https on the internet
      - commandersaki 3y ago
        All those sites you mention work with IPv4 just fine. When you shut off IPv4 in favour of IPv6 you shut off access to probably 70% of the Internet. Let's see what happens when you don't enable IPv6? Oh nothing... that's right, the Internet will remain working just fine. There's very little incentive to support IPv6 when all that is required to connect to the Internet is IPv4. Which comes to the fundamental issue with the deployment and transition with IPv6, it will always remain a second class citizen until we no longer need to rely on IPv4.