4 ms·

I kinda agree with the arcticle. Here is my ideal IPv6: http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6 http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6 It basically means, you grab IPv4 impl

by Borg3 2y ago

I kinda agree with the arcticle. Here is my ideal IPv6: http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6 http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6 It basically means, you grab IPv4 implementation, extend address space to 64bit, call it IPv6, vioala. Problem solved. IPv4 was battle proven for years. It mistakes were sorted out (CIDR addressing, ARP poisoning, DHCP/BOOTP, etc). It was widely understood. NAT is okey, CGNAT is not. The only problem was the address space. And they failed it...

aaronbaugher 2y ago
Yeah, Dan Bernstein explained a long time ago how they were doing it wrong.[1] That's not dated, but it must have been 20 years ago that I first read it. In short, by making it a separate, incompatible protocol, they created a situation where no one had an incentive (other than curiosity) to implement it on clients, servers, or in between, until everyone else did. There were better options. [1] https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
bluGill 2y ago
That is what they did. The number of bits is a detail. There is no way to use a different number of bits and remain compatible.
- Borg3 2y ago
  This is what they did NOT! Just read IPv6 related RFCs. A lot of differences. If they did that in 1997, we would probably be on IPv6 long time ago...
  - bluGill 2y ago
    No we wouldn't, I worked on routers in 1997: the differences with IPv6 made our job much easier. The hard parts about IPv6 are changing the number of bits makes everything incompatible. That means all software and books needs to be rewritten to work with the new protocol and there is no way around that. Of course you probably never worked with source routing in IPv4 - I spent a lot of time testing it because marketing couldn't prove none of our customers used it. Even then nearly all routers shipped configured to drop any packet with source address routing, but to comply with the rfcs we had to make it work.
    - Borg3 2y ago
      Source routing? Can you tell me what you used it for? The only place where source routing is used these days is MPLS-SR aka Segment Routing. The edge router precompute the path and sets all labels. Core routers just pop those labels and switch. Most of time you just use normal routing or ocassionaly PBR (Policy Based Routing) with is not source routing. Src IP can be one of the parameters to decide.
PaulKeeble 2y ago
It would have been adopted a lot faster if they had just done this. Just extend the address space, make a small part of it the previous ipv4 address space so translation between the two was trivial and it would have been easy to run them both side by side and transition appropriately with some translation services where IPv6 interfaced with IPv4.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Now you just recreated ipv6 minus the benefits it brings.
kemotep 2y ago
If one of the main blockers in ipv6 adoption is updating routers and switches and all the networking gear and endpoints to support the new address scheme, how in the world would your “just extend ipv4 to 64 bits” solve that problem specifically? 123.123.123.123/48 or whatever would be completely useless and dropped by an incompatible router and a server wouldn’t know what the hell to send its packets back to if it even got a response from something with that.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  > If one of the main blockers in ipv6 adoption is updating routers and switches and all the networking gear and endpoints to support the new address scheme, how in the world would your “just extend ipv4 to 64 bits” solve that problem specifically? By reducing the amount of work needed in order to get the new thing implemented. IPv4 is super simple by comparison to IPv6. I'd say there's at least an order of magnitude more complexity and legacy in IPv6 than in IPv4. Just look at the number of IPv4 vs IPv6 RFCs. > 123.123.123.123/48 or whatever would be completely useless and dropped by an incompatible router [...] It would still have been a new protocol, just able to share a lot of source code with IPv4.

by Borg3 2y ago

aaronbaugher 2y ago

Yeah, Dan Bernstein explained a long time ago how they were doing it wrong.[1] That's not dated, but it must have been 20 years ago that I first read it. In short, by making it a separate, incompatible protocol, they created a situation where no one had an incentive (other than curiosity) to implement it on clients, servers, or in between, until everyone else did. There were better options. [1] https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

bluGill 2y ago

That is what they did. The number of bits is a detail. There is no way to use a different number of bits and remain compatible.

Borg3 2y ago
This is what they did NOT! Just read IPv6 related RFCs. A lot of differences. If they did that in 1997, we would probably be on IPv6 long time ago...
- bluGill 2y ago
  No we wouldn't, I worked on routers in 1997: the differences with IPv6 made our job much easier. The hard parts about IPv6 are changing the number of bits makes everything incompatible. That means all software and books needs to be rewritten to work with the new protocol and there is no way around that. Of course you probably never worked with source routing in IPv4 - I spent a lot of time testing it because marketing couldn't prove none of our customers used it. Even then nearly all routers shipped configured to drop any packet with source address routing, but to comply with the rfcs we had to make it work.
  - Borg3 2y ago
    Source routing? Can you tell me what you used it for? The only place where source routing is used these days is MPLS-SR aka Segment Routing. The edge router precompute the path and sets all labels. Core routers just pop those labels and switch. Most of time you just use normal routing or ocassionaly PBR (Policy Based Routing) with is not source routing. Src IP can be one of the parameters to decide.

PaulKeeble 2y ago

It would have been adopted a lot faster if they had just done this. Just extend the address space, make a small part of it the previous ipv4 address space so translation between the two was trivial and it would have been easy to run them both side by side and transition appropriately with some translation services where IPv6 interfaced with IPv4.

Hikikomori 2y ago
Now you just recreated ipv6 minus the benefits it brings.

kemotep 2y ago

If one of the main blockers in ipv6 adoption is updating routers and switches and all the networking gear and endpoints to support the new address scheme, how in the world would your “just extend ipv4 to 64 bits” solve that problem specifically? 123.123.123.123/48 or whatever would be completely useless and dropped by an incompatible router and a server wouldn’t know what the hell to send its packets back to if it even got a response from something with that.

cryptonector 2y ago
> If one of the main blockers in ipv6 adoption is updating routers and switches and all the networking gear and endpoints to support the new address scheme, how in the world would your “just extend ipv4 to 64 bits” solve that problem specifically? By reducing the amount of work needed in order to get the new thing implemented. IPv4 is super simple by comparison to IPv6. I'd say there's at least an order of magnitude more complexity and legacy in IPv6 than in IPv4. Just look at the number of IPv4 vs IPv6 RFCs. > 123.123.123.123/48 or whatever would be completely useless and dropped by an incompatible router [...] It would still have been a new protocol, just able to share a lot of source code with IPv4.