4 ms·

>expected to bring $1B/year Yes. >and speed up IPv6 Fucking lol. It's still not enough of a financial hit for people to want to deal with IPv6. Should have

>expected to bring $1B/year Yes. >and speed up IPv6 Fucking lol. It's still not enough of a financial hit for people to want to deal with IPv6. Should have just come up with a better protocol in the first place. That's what really would have stimulated adoption.

Borg3 3y ago
Something like this? http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6 http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  > keep ARP, ND wasn't a great idea after all there's nothing wrong with ND and it addresses several security vulnerabilities, namely ARP cache poisoning. But the real reason why ARP was removed is because it's a layering violation. > NAT support (because it's everywhere these days) nothing at all is stopping you from doing NAT on IPv6, except for the fact that everyone hates NAT, even people that pretend that they like it. > Correct DHCP support (SLAAC wasn't a great idea after all) SLAAC is a great thing. Also, DHCPv6 also exists, which allows you to do exactly what DHCP lets you do. Android doesn't support DHCPv6, but that's not IPv6s fault. - IPv6->IPv4 interop (one way) There's no such thing as one-way communication if we're talking TCP. Besides, it's still fundamentally impossible if the other end has no idea what to do with the source address.
  - betaby 3y ago
    DHCPv6 doesn't support dhcpv6 forwarding though like dhcpv4 does. One can't forward dhcpv6 request over multiple ipv6 hops, only hop-by-hop forwarding supported to my knowledge.
  - Borg3 3y ago
    There are several IPv6 -> IPv4 interops (bridges) developed already. All of them appeard due to slow IPv6 adoption. Some of them are: NAT64, XLAT6, DS-Lite. Never heard about ND tables overflows? They fixed one thing, broken another. ARP poisoning is mostly fixed problem. I like NAT myself. Im dualhomed (el-cheapo), using policy routing and NAT. Everything works like a charm. I cant imagine such setup w/o NAT actually. SLAAC might be great thing for you, but not for others. This is why IPv6 is such a failure. Instead of creating simple protocol to meet middle ground, they slapped together annoying techs for specific cases like IoT. Great job.
    - sgjohnson 3y ago
      > I cant imagine such setup w/o NAT actually. If you had a /24 of v4, you easily could. > SLAAC might be great thing for you, but not for others. [citation needed]
      - Borg3 3y ago
        Haha, right.. eBGP session to home customer.. Other solution would be /24 + VPS provider + eBGP session with them. Kinda overkill for me.
icedchai 3y ago
If you know IPv4 networking, you can learn v6 in a day or two. It's just not that complicated. Some aspects, like no need for NAT, easier subnet calculations, etc. make V6 simpler to deploy. What's wrong with it? What would make it "better"? I've been running V6 at home for over 15 years (first on a tunnel, then native.) In a professional context, I am still running into people afraid to turn it on.

Borg3 3y ago

Something like this? http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6 http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6

sgjohnson 3y ago
> keep ARP, ND wasn't a great idea after all there's nothing wrong with ND and it addresses several security vulnerabilities, namely ARP cache poisoning. But the real reason why ARP was removed is because it's a layering violation. > NAT support (because it's everywhere these days) nothing at all is stopping you from doing NAT on IPv6, except for the fact that everyone hates NAT, even people that pretend that they like it. > Correct DHCP support (SLAAC wasn't a great idea after all) SLAAC is a great thing. Also, DHCPv6 also exists, which allows you to do exactly what DHCP lets you do. Android doesn't support DHCPv6, but that's not IPv6s fault. - IPv6->IPv4 interop (one way) There's no such thing as one-way communication if we're talking TCP. Besides, it's still fundamentally impossible if the other end has no idea what to do with the source address.
- betaby 3y ago
  DHCPv6 doesn't support dhcpv6 forwarding though like dhcpv4 does. One can't forward dhcpv6 request over multiple ipv6 hops, only hop-by-hop forwarding supported to my knowledge.
- Borg3 3y ago
  There are several IPv6 -> IPv4 interops (bridges) developed already. All of them appeard due to slow IPv6 adoption. Some of them are: NAT64, XLAT6, DS-Lite. Never heard about ND tables overflows? They fixed one thing, broken another. ARP poisoning is mostly fixed problem. I like NAT myself. Im dualhomed (el-cheapo), using policy routing and NAT. Everything works like a charm. I cant imagine such setup w/o NAT actually. SLAAC might be great thing for you, but not for others. This is why IPv6 is such a failure. Instead of creating simple protocol to meet middle ground, they slapped together annoying techs for specific cases like IoT. Great job.
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    > I cant imagine such setup w/o NAT actually. If you had a /24 of v4, you easily could. > SLAAC might be great thing for you, but not for others. [citation needed]
    - Borg3 3y ago
      Haha, right.. eBGP session to home customer.. Other solution would be /24 + VPS provider + eBGP session with them. Kinda overkill for me.

icedchai 3y ago

If you know IPv4 networking, you can learn v6 in a day or two. It's just not that complicated. Some aspects, like no need for NAT, easier subnet calculations, etc. make V6 simpler to deploy. What's wrong with it? What would make it "better"? I've been running V6 at home for over 15 years (first on a tunnel, then native.) In a professional context, I am still running into people afraid to turn it on.