6 ms·

Why couldn't we have just added another byte to IPv4 addresses and called it a day? Hell add two bytes.

blueflow 2y ago
Because every node that is supposed to be able to route these packages need to be patched to understand the new package format. So its is equally difficult.
- sherburt3 2y ago
  Well yeah it would obviously constitute a new protocol and hardware/software would need to be upgraded, but beyond that everything that worked in IPv4 would continue to work in this theoretical protocol.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    You could add 12 bytes to the address, such an protocol already exists and is in widespread use.
    - sherburt3 2y ago
      I just don't think IPv6 addresses are human readable compared to IPv4 addresses. I know DNS makes that a non issue for the majority of users but I still think it's an important quality for people in charge of maintaining networks and stuff.
      - blueflow 2y ago
        I like IPv6 addresses more because they force you to use copy-paste, which removes the risk of typing errors. And nobody would try to dictate me an IPv6 address via phone.
      - preisschild 2y ago
        > I just don't think IPv6 addresses are human readable compared to IPv4 addresses Then you just didn't read enough into IPv6 documentation yet. IPv6 addresses can be short if you want because of the `::` operator. Example: Instead of IPv4 where you'd have the addresses `10.0.0.2` - `10.0.0.100` for clients on your LAN + a single global IPv4 address, you just have `2001:db8::2` - `2001:db8::100` (where `2001:db8` is the "house address" part of your LAN and `2-100` is the specific device address)
        viraptor 2y ago
        They can be short if they can be short. My fe80::3846:9cff:fe24:a5c7 is not going to get shorter.
        magicalhippo 2y ago
        I have a 56-bit prefix which cannot be shortened. That alone makes it very tedious to type by hand, never mind when the host has used SLAAC. ULA makes it somewhat better, but not that much. In my view, IPv6 requires DNS for all hosts to be manageable. We have mDNS which, when it works, makes that easier for internal hosts, but for external IPs using DynDNS is required.
    - Hikikomori 2y ago
      It's the change that is problematic, 1 bytes, 12 bytes, ipv6, they all have the same problem.
      - blueflow 2y ago
        12 bytes is IPv6, this was the joke. "widespread use" should have given it away.
        Hikikomori 2y ago
        Didn't connect, usually don't think of IP addresses in bytes.
- magicalhippo 2y ago
  It's not equally difficult, because they decided to change a lot of other things, including some key details. Not saying all those changes were bad, but at least for me it also makes thinking about IPv6 when using it much more foreign than if it had been just a larger address space.
  - sph 2y ago
    IPv6 isn't difficult to implement, and complexity is not the reason we're still stuck in IPv4 land. We are stuck here because the Internet runs on devices no one cares enough/has enough budget to update.
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      At this point it's not so much the basic devices, it's very rare to have hardware still around that doesn't support ipv6, it's more the configuration of the networks themselves, as any given network needs to have its own set of decisions made on address allocation, etc to actuallly support it. And, since it's used by fewer people and there always needs to be a fallback to ipv4, for most networks the if ipv6 is broken it's not an emergency like ipv4 being broken, heck it might not even be noticed. Which is a self-perpetuating cycle as people will stay away from ipv6, especially committing 100% to it, while there's still frequent breakages. (This does point to the fact that maybe ipv6 and the associated implementations should have been designed with a view to a dual-stack mode which is basically "flip a switch and it'll mirror your ipv4 setup so you don't have to think about it until you locally need more address space", but I don't know if that's something that would have actually been feasible. But a lot of the complaining about ipv6 is because it was designed to operate fairly differently from ipv4 in a few keys ways which are not necessarily always better and add friction to the migration process)
      - sph 2y ago
        > flip a switch and it'll mirror your ipv4 setup so you don't have to think about it until you locally need more address space If you think about it, that is what dual-stack is. You don't have to do anything unless you want more address space. The issue is that often locally one doesn't need more address space, but the Internet as a whole does.
sph 2y ago
For every problem there is a solution which is simple, easy and wrong.
- jampekka 2y ago
  Also a complex, difficult and wrong.
  - p_l 2y ago
    And "just add a byte(s) to address field" manages to be all of those at the same time
preisschild 2y ago
Because that would have been just as a breaking change as IPv6, but fixes a lot fewer problems than IPv6 does.
- sherburt3 2y ago
  I'm not an expert in networking but every time I've had to deal with dual stack it feels like IPv6 introduced a bunch of problems.

Because every node that is supposed to be able to route these packages need to be patched to understand the new package format. So its is equally difficult.

sherburt3 2y ago
Well yeah it would obviously constitute a new protocol and hardware/software would need to be upgraded, but beyond that everything that worked in IPv4 would continue to work in this theoretical protocol.
- blueflow 2y ago
  You could add 12 bytes to the address, such an protocol already exists and is in widespread use.
  - sherburt3 2y ago
    I just don't think IPv6 addresses are human readable compared to IPv4 addresses. I know DNS makes that a non issue for the majority of users but I still think it's an important quality for people in charge of maintaining networks and stuff.
    - blueflow 2y ago
      I like IPv6 addresses more because they force you to use copy-paste, which removes the risk of typing errors. And nobody would try to dictate me an IPv6 address via phone.
    - preisschild 2y ago
      > I just don't think IPv6 addresses are human readable compared to IPv4 addresses Then you just didn't read enough into IPv6 documentation yet. IPv6 addresses can be short if you want because of the `::` operator. Example: Instead of IPv4 where you'd have the addresses `10.0.0.2` - `10.0.0.100` for clients on your LAN + a single global IPv4 address, you just have `2001:db8::2` - `2001:db8::100` (where `2001:db8` is the "house address" part of your LAN and `2-100` is the specific device address)
      - viraptor 2y ago
        They can be short if they can be short. My fe80::3846:9cff:fe24:a5c7 is not going to get shorter.
      - magicalhippo 2y ago
        I have a 56-bit prefix which cannot be shortened. That alone makes it very tedious to type by hand, never mind when the host has used SLAAC. ULA makes it somewhat better, but not that much. In my view, IPv6 requires DNS for all hosts to be manageable. We have mDNS which, when it works, makes that easier for internal hosts, but for external IPs using DynDNS is required.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    It's the change that is problematic, 1 bytes, 12 bytes, ipv6, they all have the same problem.
    - blueflow 2y ago
      12 bytes is IPv6, this was the joke. "widespread use" should have given it away.
      - Hikikomori 2y ago
        Didn't connect, usually don't think of IP addresses in bytes.
magicalhippo 2y ago
It's not equally difficult, because they decided to change a lot of other things, including some key details. Not saying all those changes were bad, but at least for me it also makes thinking about IPv6 when using it much more foreign than if it had been just a larger address space.
- sph 2y ago
  IPv6 isn't difficult to implement, and complexity is not the reason we're still stuck in IPv4 land. We are stuck here because the Internet runs on devices no one cares enough/has enough budget to update.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    At this point it's not so much the basic devices, it's very rare to have hardware still around that doesn't support ipv6, it's more the configuration of the networks themselves, as any given network needs to have its own set of decisions made on address allocation, etc to actuallly support it. And, since it's used by fewer people and there always needs to be a fallback to ipv4, for most networks the if ipv6 is broken it's not an emergency like ipv4 being broken, heck it might not even be noticed. Which is a self-perpetuating cycle as people will stay away from ipv6, especially committing 100% to it, while there's still frequent breakages. (This does point to the fact that maybe ipv6 and the associated implementations should have been designed with a view to a dual-stack mode which is basically "flip a switch and it'll mirror your ipv4 setup so you don't have to think about it until you locally need more address space", but I don't know if that's something that would have actually been feasible. But a lot of the complaining about ipv6 is because it was designed to operate fairly differently from ipv4 in a few keys ways which are not necessarily always better and add friction to the migration process)
    - sph 2y ago
      > flip a switch and it'll mirror your ipv4 setup so you don't have to think about it until you locally need more address space If you think about it, that is what dual-stack is. You don't have to do anything unless you want more address space. The issue is that often locally one doesn't need more address space, but the Internet as a whole does.

sph 2y ago

For every problem there is a solution which is simple, easy and wrong.

jampekka 2y ago
Also a complex, difficult and wrong.
- p_l 2y ago
  And "just add a byte(s) to address field" manages to be all of those at the same time

preisschild 2y ago

Because that would have been just as a breaking change as IPv6, but fixes a lot fewer problems than IPv6 does.

sherburt3 2y ago
I'm not an expert in networking but every time I've had to deal with dual stack it feels like IPv6 introduced a bunch of problems.