4 ms·

At this point, we should just accept we were wrong and bury IPv6 six feet under.

by pif 3y ago

__s 3y ago
What's your alternative? https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ipv6 rollout is well in progress. AWS started charging extra for IPv4 ips. 32 bits is not enough. According to that site India is 70% ipv6 Websites should have the easier time providing ipv6. In the past they could keep it simpler because users weren't on ipv6, & often that was because ISPs have dragged their feet. That's changing
georgyo 3y ago
And then what? Invent a new standard that also won't be adopted? Make it so in the future a public IP is like owning a home? IPv6 is the only viable path forward. There are no redos here. Saying IPv6 can't work is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand. IPv4 space has run out. Any solution that add more space requires full adoption from client on the planet. The thing is, IPv6 only clients can reach IPv4 only services. It's why these services don't advertise v6, they don't technically need to even if some clients would be better off. But an IPv6 only service _can not_ be accessed by an IPv4 only client. These limitations are true for any possible alternative to IPv6. We need people to stop trying to deny IPv6, it IS the future.
- izacus 3y ago
  Yes, invent a new standard that's actually easy enough to implement so it will be adopted. If the USB consortium can do it, the network folks can as well.
  - Pikamander2 3y ago
    Roughly 20-40% of the web supports IPv6, and the number grows every year. Implementing it fully is a technical process, but it's not an impossible barrier. The real reason for the slowness is that there's little to no profit incentive to ensuring its full compatibility, in part because IPv4 is guaranteed to be (mostly) backwards compatible for decades. It's a slow process, but it's happening. There's no need to invent yet another standard for something that's already working and will likely be good enough to last generations once it's finished being implemented.
  - georgyo 3y ago
    My point is that there is no standard possible that would be easy enough to implement. IPv4 works good enough for now, but any standard trying to replace it or solve it's problems will have the same deployment issues at v6. Nothing is going to change the fact that _any_ solution needs every router to work, needs to handle legacy v4 and new v* addresses. There is a reason why there aren't even alternative proposals to IPv6, none of the problems that the IPv6 deployment is having can be solved by a "simpler" implementation.
    - izacus 3y ago
      > My point is that there is no standard possible that would be easy enough to implement. IPv4 works good enough for now, but any standard trying to replace it or solve it's problems will have the same deployment issues at v6. But that's just not true now, is it? Extending the address space didn't need a complete rework and rethink how local network routing works, removal of standard NAT and messing around with address assignment (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes). IPv6 isn't having problems because it's not compatible, it's having problems because they made an utter mess of how local networks works and routers most companies (and people) have aren't able to reliably deal with the complexity of what's rather easily solved by DHCPv4 on "old" networks. The fact that IPv6 decided to rework the basics of how routing works while also demanding a dual-stack deployment is the core of the problem. If the extent of deploying IPv6 would be "we'll enable address assignment on our existing DHCP server with same rules", you'd be on mostly IPv6 right now.
      - silverquiet 3y ago
        > Extending the address space didn't need a complete rework and rethink how local network routing works, removal of standard NAT and messing around with address assignment (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes). I think the issue here is that IPv6, despite being the successor to IPv4, is actually quite old in itself; it was developed starting in the early 90's and so it's just a different idea of what the internet was going to be. NAT is more like a "hack" that developed around that time as well and has turned into the normal way networks are managed.
      - 3y ago
- pif 3y ago
  > We need people to stop trying to deny IPv6, it IS the future. You can scream and cry as muck as you like, IPv4 IS the present. And people in general will not care until the world will work for them. And I trust those companies to know how to cater for people's money. When, and if, IPv6 will be the right tool, they will use it. But trying to shame them on such a meaningless technicality is the equivalent of criticising NASA for the colour of the Apollo launch station.
jmclnx 3y ago
I do not really understand the issue. Is it because IPv6 is vary hard ? I still wonder why they did not enhance IPv4 by adding more digits. Maybe that would have been easier ? The phone company did that 50 years ago. When I was a kid we only needed to dial 5 numbers for local, 7 for long distance with a 1. As time went on, additional digits were added.
- Pikamander2 3y ago
  > enhance IPv4 by adding more digits I mean, that's not too far off from what IPv6 is. The main difference, at least as far as the visual addresses go, is that IPv6 also supports letters, which drastically increases the total number of addresses beyond what extending the number of characters would do. I think part of the idea was that, since transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 is going to be difficult, we might as well make it worthwile be ensuring that another transition never needs to happen again for the forseeable future.
- sambazi 3y ago
  it brings different pain points and constraints and hence requires reorganization and thinking. there are no "additional bits" left to use and it would also require cosiderable effort to implement
- Ekaros 3y ago
  IPv6 added more digits, maybe too many... But it also fixed some weirdness of IPv4. Mostly being sensible upgrades aiming for less manually configured networks. Adding more digits sounds simple, but there is no good room in IPv4 packet. And then any solution using existing one would not anyways be backwards compatible. So for each round of new byte you add to header you would have different version anyway. Requiring new hardware and software.
Pikamander2 3y ago
Is there something with it, or does it just have growing pains? IPv4's address space is fundamentally too small, so there has to be some kind of alternative or replacement.

At this point, we should just accept we were wrong and bury IPv6 six feet under.

by pif 3y ago

At this point, we should just accept we were wrong and bury IPv6 six feet under.

__s 3y ago

What's your alternative? https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ipv6 rollout is well in progress. AWS started charging extra for IPv4 ips. 32 bits is not enough. According to that site India is 70% ipv6 Websites should have the easier time providing ipv6. In the past they could keep it simpler because users weren't on ipv6, & often that was because ISPs have dragged their feet. That's changing

georgyo 3y ago

And then what? Invent a new standard that also won't be adopted? Make it so in the future a public IP is like owning a home? IPv6 is the only viable path forward. There are no redos here. Saying IPv6 can't work is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand. IPv4 space has run out. Any solution that add more space requires full adoption from client on the planet. The thing is, IPv6 only clients can reach IPv4 only services. It's why these services don't advertise v6, they don't technically need to even if some clients would be better off. But an IPv6 only service _can not_ be accessed by an IPv4 only client. These limitations are true for any possible alternative to IPv6. We need people to stop trying to deny IPv6, it IS the future.

izacus 3y ago
Yes, invent a new standard that's actually easy enough to implement so it will be adopted. If the USB consortium can do it, the network folks can as well.
- Pikamander2 3y ago
  Roughly 20-40% of the web supports IPv6, and the number grows every year. Implementing it fully is a technical process, but it's not an impossible barrier. The real reason for the slowness is that there's little to no profit incentive to ensuring its full compatibility, in part because IPv4 is guaranteed to be (mostly) backwards compatible for decades. It's a slow process, but it's happening. There's no need to invent yet another standard for something that's already working and will likely be good enough to last generations once it's finished being implemented.
- georgyo 3y ago
  My point is that there is no standard possible that would be easy enough to implement. IPv4 works good enough for now, but any standard trying to replace it or solve it's problems will have the same deployment issues at v6. Nothing is going to change the fact that _any_ solution needs every router to work, needs to handle legacy v4 and new v* addresses. There is a reason why there aren't even alternative proposals to IPv6, none of the problems that the IPv6 deployment is having can be solved by a "simpler" implementation.
  - izacus 3y ago
    > My point is that there is no standard possible that would be easy enough to implement. IPv4 works good enough for now, but any standard trying to replace it or solve it's problems will have the same deployment issues at v6. But that's just not true now, is it? Extending the address space didn't need a complete rework and rethink how local network routing works, removal of standard NAT and messing around with address assignment (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes). IPv6 isn't having problems because it's not compatible, it's having problems because they made an utter mess of how local networks works and routers most companies (and people) have aren't able to reliably deal with the complexity of what's rather easily solved by DHCPv4 on "old" networks. The fact that IPv6 decided to rework the basics of how routing works while also demanding a dual-stack deployment is the core of the problem. If the extent of deploying IPv6 would be "we'll enable address assignment on our existing DHCP server with same rules", you'd be on mostly IPv6 right now.
    - silverquiet 3y ago
      > Extending the address space didn't need a complete rework and rethink how local network routing works, removal of standard NAT and messing around with address assignment (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes). I think the issue here is that IPv6, despite being the successor to IPv4, is actually quite old in itself; it was developed starting in the early 90's and so it's just a different idea of what the internet was going to be. NAT is more like a "hack" that developed around that time as well and has turned into the normal way networks are managed.
    - 3y ago
pif 3y ago
> We need people to stop trying to deny IPv6, it IS the future. You can scream and cry as muck as you like, IPv4 IS the present. And people in general will not care until the world will work for them. And I trust those companies to know how to cater for people's money. When, and if, IPv6 will be the right tool, they will use it. But trying to shame them on such a meaningless technicality is the equivalent of criticising NASA for the colour of the Apollo launch station.

jmclnx 3y ago

I do not really understand the issue. Is it because IPv6 is vary hard ? I still wonder why they did not enhance IPv4 by adding more digits. Maybe that would have been easier ? The phone company did that 50 years ago. When I was a kid we only needed to dial 5 numbers for local, 7 for long distance with a 1. As time went on, additional digits were added.

Pikamander2 3y ago
> enhance IPv4 by adding more digits I mean, that's not too far off from what IPv6 is. The main difference, at least as far as the visual addresses go, is that IPv6 also supports letters, which drastically increases the total number of addresses beyond what extending the number of characters would do. I think part of the idea was that, since transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 is going to be difficult, we might as well make it worthwile be ensuring that another transition never needs to happen again for the forseeable future.
sambazi 3y ago
it brings different pain points and constraints and hence requires reorganization and thinking. there are no "additional bits" left to use and it would also require cosiderable effort to implement
Ekaros 3y ago
IPv6 added more digits, maybe too many... But it also fixed some weirdness of IPv4. Mostly being sensible upgrades aiming for less manually configured networks. Adding more digits sounds simple, but there is no good room in IPv4 packet. And then any solution using existing one would not anyways be backwards compatible. So for each round of new byte you add to header you would have different version anyway. Requiring new hardware and software.

Pikamander2 3y ago

Is there something with it, or does it just have growing pains? IPv4's address space is fundamentally too small, so there has to be some kind of alternative or replacement.