5 ms·

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.

by izacus 3y ago

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.
  - orangeboats 3y ago
    NAT was never intended to be so deeply ingrained in modern networking. It has overstayed its welcome.
    - izacus 3y ago
      Only for people who have no skin in the game. The actual network operators are redeploying NAT even on IPv6 installations which tells you a lot about how disconnected from reality the IPv6 folks are. (But that was even shown when they were dreaming of deploying IPv6 without any kind of DHCP which had to be backtracked making a utter frigging mess of address assignment on networks with multiple competing approaches.)
      - orangeboats 3y ago
        >The actual network operators are redeploying NAT Who? And what constitutes "actual"? Are the netengs in FAANG actual network operators? Who aren't actual operators? Why they aren't?
        izacus 3y ago
        Most deployments of IPv6 are mobile networks which don't actually allow their client phone IPv6 addresses to be reachable (as was the dream around getting rid of NAT).

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.

by 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.
- orangeboats 3y ago
  NAT was never intended to be so deeply ingrained in modern networking. It has overstayed its welcome.
  - izacus 3y ago
    Only for people who have no skin in the game. The actual network operators are redeploying NAT even on IPv6 installations which tells you a lot about how disconnected from reality the IPv6 folks are. (But that was even shown when they were dreaming of deploying IPv6 without any kind of DHCP which had to be backtracked making a utter frigging mess of address assignment on networks with multiple competing approaches.)
    - orangeboats 3y ago
      >The actual network operators are redeploying NAT Who? And what constitutes "actual"? Are the netengs in FAANG actual network operators? Who aren't actual operators? Why they aren't?
      - izacus 3y ago
        Most deployments of IPv6 are mobile networks which don't actually allow their client phone IPv6 addresses to be reachable (as was the dream around getting rid of NAT).