4 ms·

>how do you get 32-bit-only system to understand more-32-bits of addressing Maybe you don't. I imagine it would work like this (where XXXX::<IPv4> is the tran

>how do you get 32-bit-only system to understand more-32-bits of addressing Maybe you don't. I imagine it would work like this (where XXXX::<IPv4> is the transition block mapping the current Internet v4 into IPv6): - 32 bit host could only talk to other 32-bit hosts, and other XXXX::<IPv4 Adress> hosts. We have this now, just without the XXXX::<IPv4> part. - Hosts with v6 addresses outside of XXXX::<IPv4> could not talk to IPv4 addresses without having a 6to4 proxy. We also have this now. - Hosts with v4 addresses could switch to IPv6, KEEPING their current v4 address by setting their IPv6 addres to XXXX::<IPv4>. They can now talk to all the hosts they used to be able to, AND they can start talking to IPv6 hosts, without having to have two IP, dual stack config, etc. So we end up with a significant benefit of allowing people with IPv4 addresses and IPv6 connectivity to do an IPv6-only setup. In my case, I simply don't see us transitioning to IPv6. Our main service has an IPv4-only address and we receive 0 complaints about it. We've literally never had anyone say they couldn't connect to our services because of it. Our users are geographically located in the central US, and everybody has IPv4s. Maybe they have an IPv6 as well, but if we went v6-only I can basically guarantee that we'd have users screaming at us. We'd probably have lawsuits over it. But going v4-only, not a peep.

throw0101c 2y ago
> - 32 bit host could only talk to other 32-bit hosts, and other XXXX::<IPv4 Adress> hosts. We have this now, just without the XXXX::<IPv4> part. Oh, you mean like IPv4-mapped Address (::ffff:0:0/96) as defined in RFC 4291 § 2.2.5, or NAT64 (64:ff9b::/96) as per RFC 6050. See also 6to4 in RFC 3056 dating back to 2001. Your idea is not new.
- linsomniac 2y ago
  Not my idea, wasn't representing it as my idea; djb proposed it long ago (as other commenters in this thread mentioned), and as you pointed out as IPv4 mapped addresses. I was just describing how it might work, since it's a little confusing. In particular when I first started thinking about it I kept getting stuck on "Ok, so how do non-v4 mapped IPs talk to v4 addresses?"
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > Not my idea, wasn't representing it as my idea; djb proposed it long ago (as other commenters in this thread mentioned), and as you pointed out as IPv4 mapped addresses. I was just describing how it might work, since it's a little confusing. Every time IPv6 comes up some number of people talk about a protocol that 'just' added more bits IPv4 and calling it a day. But when going over the details of how what would work, exactly, you end up at the same place as IPv6 (and various 'transition mechanisms'). But there is no 'just' adding more addresses: you need to update (at least) end-hosts, update DNS, have relays/proxies if the middle of your network does not support IPng, have tunnelling to/from those special translation systems. It's basically the same thing as IPv6. Certainly you can argue about keeping ARP versus going with NDP. Or not having SLAAC—but then you need infrastructure like DHCP (which is optional with IPv6).

throw0101c 2y ago

> - 32 bit host could only talk to other 32-bit hosts, and other XXXX::<IPv4 Adress> hosts. We have this now, just without the XXXX::<IPv4> part. Oh, you mean like IPv4-mapped Address (::ffff:0:0/96) as defined in RFC 4291 § 2.2.5, or NAT64 (64:ff9b::/96) as per RFC 6050. See also 6to4 in RFC 3056 dating back to 2001. Your idea is not new.

linsomniac 2y ago
Not my idea, wasn't representing it as my idea; djb proposed it long ago (as other commenters in this thread mentioned), and as you pointed out as IPv4 mapped addresses. I was just describing how it might work, since it's a little confusing. In particular when I first started thinking about it I kept getting stuck on "Ok, so how do non-v4 mapped IPs talk to v4 addresses?"
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Not my idea, wasn't representing it as my idea; djb proposed it long ago (as other commenters in this thread mentioned), and as you pointed out as IPv4 mapped addresses. I was just describing how it might work, since it's a little confusing. Every time IPv6 comes up some number of people talk about a protocol that 'just' added more bits IPv4 and calling it a day. But when going over the details of how what would work, exactly, you end up at the same place as IPv6 (and various 'transition mechanisms'). But there is no 'just' adding more addresses: you need to update (at least) end-hosts, update DNS, have relays/proxies if the middle of your network does not support IPng, have tunnelling to/from those special translation systems. It's basically the same thing as IPv6. Certainly you can argue about keeping ARP versus going with NDP. Or not having SLAAC—but then you need infrastructure like DHCP (which is optional with IPv6).