2 ms·

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 i

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.