4 ms·

> I'm also convinced that the length of IPv6 addresses and the difficulty in typing them is a major reason for lack of adoption. Very seemingly small UX annoyan

> I'm also convinced that the length of IPv6 addresses and the difficulty in typing them is a major reason for lack of adoption. Very seemingly small UX annoyances can have a large effect. I've been convinced of this since around 2000. Every network utility dealing with IPv4 had... dotted quad addresses. You could remember them, you could read them, you could speak them to someone else. Brainwise, we can remember 3-5 things - segments, digits, etc. Remembering more is harder for the average person. Having the 6 be literally dotted sextant(?) - 5.73.192.168.0.4 for example - would have been much much much easier to transition in to, and would have given us 64k x 4 billion addresses. Yes, it's not the near infinity we have with IPv6, where apparently every molecule in the universe can have multiple IP addresses or whatever the max number is. But it would have been much much easier to transition. 27 years later we're not transitioned from ipv4, and we've got another 27 years of dotted quad baked in to daily usage everywhere.

kstrauser 2y ago
That would have required exactly as much work to transition, plus require computers to get good at 48-bit math. ("Why are the top 2 bytes always 0xFF?" "I don't know, grandson, but I'm sure it seemed like a great idea before Y248.")
- lowercased 2y ago
  I'd imagine many countries would claim a top spot or two, and transition all canadian addresses to, say, 7.0.0.0.0.0. Big companies would probably get some of their own. Legacy/default stuff would have leading 0.0, sure, but... so what? No, it wouldn't have taken 'exactly as much work to transition'. See another reply. In 2024, I'm still reading about BGP/routing table issues, and hardware having problems keeping up with IPv6 networking - it's just too large. How was this supposed to work in 1999? A smaller stepped transition from 4 billion addresses to... 64k of those would have been an easier transition step, and the ease - mental, UI, training, testing, security, etc would have given everyone involved the confidence and positive feedback to tackle a next stage to IPv6 (eventually).
yrro 2y ago
You have merely re-invented IPv6 but with a 48-bit address space. In your universe you would still have to run dual-stack with IPv4 indefinitely.
- kllrnohj 2y ago
  They didn't invent SLAAC, so no that wasn't a reinvention of IPv6. But even if they had the counter argument to "128 bit addresses are too long, 48 bit would have been better" is obviously not "that's the same thing just with 48 bit addresses!"
- lowercased 2y ago
  Prefix every IP with 'missing' info with 0.0. Part of this would just be transitory, but... would take up far less space. Even as late as last year, I'm reading stories about BGP issues and slowdowns because routing tables are too large/many for the hardware. In 2024. How on earth was this expected to work on hardware from 1999?
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Those routing tables are badly made. An IPv6 route takes twice as much memory as an IPv4 route, and there are a lot less than half as many IPv6 routes. https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Figure-1-%E2%80%93-IPv4-routing-table-since-1994-as-seen-by-Route-Views-peers..png https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Figure-1-%... https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Figure-14-%E2%80%94-IPv6-routing-table-since-2004-as-seen-by-Route-Views-peers..png https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Figure-14-...
  - yrro 2y ago
    there is something called an "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address" and it's exactly the scheme you suggest: the first 96 bits are zero. It doesn't help deal with the billions of devices that only handle a 32-bit address space, however. What do you suggest we do with them? _They_ are the long tail that keeps us in the dual stack world.
bobbob1921 2y ago
I think you’re exactly right on this. Further , difficulty in remembering or visualizing IPv6 addresses I think makes it more difficult to understand how it works (vs learning how v4 really works) and thus weaker adoption
mixmastamyk 2y ago
Yes, though in hex.

kstrauser 2y ago

That would have required exactly as much work to transition, plus require computers to get good at 48-bit math. ("Why are the top 2 bytes always 0xFF?" "I don't know, grandson, but I'm sure it seemed like a great idea before Y248.")

lowercased 2y ago
I'd imagine many countries would claim a top spot or two, and transition all canadian addresses to, say, 7.0.0.0.0.0. Big companies would probably get some of their own. Legacy/default stuff would have leading 0.0, sure, but... so what? No, it wouldn't have taken 'exactly as much work to transition'. See another reply. In 2024, I'm still reading about BGP/routing table issues, and hardware having problems keeping up with IPv6 networking - it's just too large. How was this supposed to work in 1999? A smaller stepped transition from 4 billion addresses to... 64k of those would have been an easier transition step, and the ease - mental, UI, training, testing, security, etc would have given everyone involved the confidence and positive feedback to tackle a next stage to IPv6 (eventually).

yrro 2y ago

You have merely re-invented IPv6 but with a 48-bit address space. In your universe you would still have to run dual-stack with IPv4 indefinitely.

kllrnohj 2y ago
They didn't invent SLAAC, so no that wasn't a reinvention of IPv6. But even if they had the counter argument to "128 bit addresses are too long, 48 bit would have been better" is obviously not "that's the same thing just with 48 bit addresses!"
lowercased 2y ago
Prefix every IP with 'missing' info with 0.0. Part of this would just be transitory, but... would take up far less space. Even as late as last year, I'm reading stories about BGP issues and slowdowns because routing tables are too large/many for the hardware. In 2024. How on earth was this expected to work on hardware from 1999?
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Those routing tables are badly made. An IPv6 route takes twice as much memory as an IPv4 route, and there are a lot less than half as many IPv6 routes. https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Figure-1-%E2%80%93-IPv4-routing-table-since-1994-as-seen-by-Route-Views-peers..png https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Figure-1-%... https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Figure-14-%E2%80%94-IPv6-routing-table-since-2004-as-seen-by-Route-Views-peers..png https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Figure-14-...
- yrro 2y ago
  there is something called an "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address" and it's exactly the scheme you suggest: the first 96 bits are zero. It doesn't help deal with the billions of devices that only handle a 32-bit address space, however. What do you suggest we do with them? _They_ are the long tail that keeps us in the dual stack world.

bobbob1921 2y ago

I think you’re exactly right on this. Further , difficulty in remembering or visualizing IPv6 addresses I think makes it more difficult to understand how it works (vs learning how v4 really works) and thus weaker adoption

mixmastamyk 2y ago

Yes, though in hex.