4 ms·

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

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).
        orangeboats 3y ago
        You are changing topic. Alas. >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). [Citation needed] I just tested with 2 cellular ISPs, and I was able to connect to the SSH service on my phone with either. (It's mostly useless though, since whenever the phone is locked the app is also suspended, causing the SSH service to be dropped)
- Hizonner 3y ago
  > complete rework and rethink how local network routing works There's no fundamental difference in routing. They both use trivially simple prefix routing. > removal of standard NAT NAT isn't "standard". NAT is a nasty kludge that people put in because they were too lazy to upgrade their software stacks. And IPv6 was defined before NAT was commonly used, in large part as a way to avoid NAT becoming common. Because NAT is a bad idea in every possible way. Also, IPv4 is itself much, much simpler without NAT. And you can do NAT on IPv6 if you're stupid enough to want to. Saying that IPv6 is complicated because it removes the need for a complicated hack like NAT is just insanity. > (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes) Those are not in any way more complicated or harder to use than DHCP4. Setting up a DHCP server to get automatic address assignment on an IPv4 network is actually harder than letting a router automatically do SLAAC to do address assignment on IPv6. Also, DHCP is not part of IPv4, and DHCP6 is not part of IPv6. I was using and managing IPv4 networks before DHCP existed. Yes, it was a royal pain in the ass... which is why that functionality was integrated into IPv6. Which was done a protocol that's actually simpler than DHCP, although I didn't and still don't approve of the way it wastes address bits.
  - izacus 3y ago
    Look, you can bloviate about how "easy and not complicated" IPv6 is and how NAT is a cludge... but failing adoption and horrid bugginess of IPv6 network stack implementation is showing the actual truth of just how much IPv6 changes and complexity hamstring the standard. The fact that you consider SLAAC somehow equivalent to DHCP shows that - I've never seen a router (outside maybe some ciscos) where those two could be used to achieve the same stable network assignment and configure downstream service firewalls appropriately. That is - if SLAAC actually works across all clients and they're not a buggy mess.
    - orangeboats 3y ago
      >but failing adoption 45% adoption. >horrid bugginess of IPv6 network stack Were the IPv4 network stack _not_ buggy? Are you sure it's just not the general incompetence of network equipment people? >where those two could be used to achieve the same stable network assignment and configure downstream service firewalls appropriately What? >SLAAC actually works across all clients and they're not a buggy mess What buggy mess? I'm on SLAAC and I don't notice anything buggy?

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).
      - orangeboats 3y ago
        You are changing topic. Alas. >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). [Citation needed] I just tested with 2 cellular ISPs, and I was able to connect to the SSH service on my phone with either. (It's mostly useless though, since whenever the phone is locked the app is also suspended, causing the SSH service to be dropped)
Hizonner 3y ago
> complete rework and rethink how local network routing works There's no fundamental difference in routing. They both use trivially simple prefix routing. > removal of standard NAT NAT isn't "standard". NAT is a nasty kludge that people put in because they were too lazy to upgrade their software stacks. And IPv6 was defined before NAT was commonly used, in large part as a way to avoid NAT becoming common. Because NAT is a bad idea in every possible way. Also, IPv4 is itself much, much simpler without NAT. And you can do NAT on IPv6 if you're stupid enough to want to. Saying that IPv6 is complicated because it removes the need for a complicated hack like NAT is just insanity. > (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes) Those are not in any way more complicated or harder to use than DHCP4. Setting up a DHCP server to get automatic address assignment on an IPv4 network is actually harder than letting a router automatically do SLAAC to do address assignment on IPv6. Also, DHCP is not part of IPv4, and DHCP6 is not part of IPv6. I was using and managing IPv4 networks before DHCP existed. Yes, it was a royal pain in the ass... which is why that functionality was integrated into IPv6. Which was done a protocol that's actually simpler than DHCP, although I didn't and still don't approve of the way it wastes address bits.
- izacus 3y ago
  Look, you can bloviate about how "easy and not complicated" IPv6 is and how NAT is a cludge... but failing adoption and horrid bugginess of IPv6 network stack implementation is showing the actual truth of just how much IPv6 changes and complexity hamstring the standard. The fact that you consider SLAAC somehow equivalent to DHCP shows that - I've never seen a router (outside maybe some ciscos) where those two could be used to achieve the same stable network assignment and configure downstream service firewalls appropriately. That is - if SLAAC actually works across all clients and they're not a buggy mess.
  - orangeboats 3y ago
    >but failing adoption 45% adoption. >horrid bugginess of IPv6 network stack Were the IPv4 network stack _not_ buggy? Are you sure it's just not the general incompetence of network equipment people? >where those two could be used to achieve the same stable network assignment and configure downstream service firewalls appropriately What? >SLAAC actually works across all clients and they're not a buggy mess What buggy mess? I'm on SLAAC and I don't notice anything buggy?