9 ms·

Too many IoT devices don't support it. Sure, we could probably isolate them in their own little world, but - what a mess that would be. IPv4 still works just fi

Too many IoT devices don't support it. Sure, we could probably isolate them in their own little world, but - what a mess that would be. IPv4 still works just fine for our internal network, so...never touch a running system. I taught some networking back in the mid- to late-90s. I remember being all enthusiastic about IPv6, and how it would soon take over the world. Didn't happen. Why? Because it was incredibly stupid not to make IPv6 backwards compatible.

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
Adoption has increased, and will continue to increase, as there is more and more of a need for it to.
- bradley13 3y ago
  Honestly not sure why my comment is being downvoted. IPv6 became a standard in 1998. If it had been backwards compatible, it would have been adopted in just a few years. Instead, here we are 26 years later, and the adoption rate looks like this: https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 That says everything about IPv6 that needs to be said.
  - welterde 3y ago
    Because it gets repeated on every thread on IPv6. IPv6 is perfectly backwards-compatible with IPv4 (you can run an IPv6-only host and still access hosts from the IPv4-internet). The issue however is that IPv4 is not forwards compatible. IPv4-only hosts cannot initiate communication with next gen protocol only hosts by design.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    Because you're saying things like > Because it was incredibly stupid not to make IPv6 backwards compatible. Without providing a non-stupid solution to a problem not solved for decades, and likely not solvable. (Also I assume you meant ipv4 forward compatible, you can name ipv4 hosts on ipv6)
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    IPv6 adoption is a monotonously increasing curve (ignoring daily fluctuations): https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html It's only a question of time.
kps 3y ago
Thread and Matter are IPv6 only. (They don't need externally routable IPv6, though.)
Feathercrown 3y ago
It's not incredibly stupid, because making it backwards compatible is impossible. How could IPv4 devices ever use IPv6 addresses? They simply don't have enough space to store the bits in the address.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  Yep, you can't make a 32 bit number contain the same amount of information as a 128 but number. You have to use NAT64 to have the two things talk to each other.
eqvinox 3y ago
> Too many IoT devices don't support it. Huh? My thermostats are IPv6 only… (they're on Thread/Zigbee/whatever they call it now) I mean, yeah, sure, there are old IPv4-only devices around. But we're now in a situation where a significant part is in fact IPv6-only. So, > what a mess that would be whatever mess that would be, we are already in it, and the way to fix it is forward.
kalleboo 3y ago
> Sure, we could probably isolate them in their own little world, but - what a mess that would No, it's IoT devices being on the public internet that is a mess. The "S" in IoT stands for Security. > how it would soon take over the world. Didn't happen It's at 45% on the public internet and growing. The majority of LAN connections are probably also IPv6 (mediated automatically through zeroconf without people even being aware)

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

Adoption has increased, and will continue to increase, as there is more and more of a need for it to.

bradley13 3y ago
Honestly not sure why my comment is being downvoted. IPv6 became a standard in 1998. If it had been backwards compatible, it would have been adopted in just a few years. Instead, here we are 26 years later, and the adoption rate looks like this: https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 That says everything about IPv6 that needs to be said.
- welterde 3y ago
  Because it gets repeated on every thread on IPv6. IPv6 is perfectly backwards-compatible with IPv4 (you can run an IPv6-only host and still access hosts from the IPv4-internet). The issue however is that IPv4 is not forwards compatible. IPv4-only hosts cannot initiate communication with next gen protocol only hosts by design.
- viraptor 3y ago
  Because you're saying things like > Because it was incredibly stupid not to make IPv6 backwards compatible. Without providing a non-stupid solution to a problem not solved for decades, and likely not solvable. (Also I assume you meant ipv4 forward compatible, you can name ipv4 hosts on ipv6)
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  IPv6 adoption is a monotonously increasing curve (ignoring daily fluctuations): https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html It's only a question of time.

kps 3y ago

Thread and Matter are IPv6 only. (They don't need externally routable IPv6, though.)

Feathercrown 3y ago

It's not incredibly stupid, because making it backwards compatible is impossible. How could IPv4 devices ever use IPv6 addresses? They simply don't have enough space to store the bits in the address.

patmorgan23 3y ago
Yep, you can't make a 32 bit number contain the same amount of information as a 128 but number. You have to use NAT64 to have the two things talk to each other.

eqvinox 3y ago

> Too many IoT devices don't support it. Huh? My thermostats are IPv6 only… (they're on Thread/Zigbee/whatever they call it now) I mean, yeah, sure, there are old IPv4-only devices around. But we're now in a situation where a significant part is in fact IPv6-only. So, > what a mess that would be whatever mess that would be, we are already in it, and the way to fix it is forward.

kalleboo 3y ago

> Sure, we could probably isolate them in their own little world, but - what a mess that would No, it's IoT devices being on the public internet that is a mess. The "S" in IoT stands for Security. > how it would soon take over the world. Didn't happen It's at 45% on the public internet and growing. The majority of LAN connections are probably also IPv6 (mediated automatically through zeroconf without people even being aware)