4 ms·

Or, I can focus on getting the project done. If IPv6 is a requirement then I'll do it, no complaints. Chasing nice-to-haves is how the project explodes in compl

Or, I can focus on getting the project done. If IPv6 is a requirement then I'll do it, no complaints. Chasing nice-to-haves is how the project explodes in complexity. Which btw, is what ipv6 did. They just needed to enlarge the address space, instead it became a whole redesign that was not only harder to adopt but also inherently more complicated than v4 (aside from removing fragmenting). So I wouldn't even say it's the right thing, it's just what someone else wants. Maybe a compromise will be reached in v7, like v6 packet format that otherwise acts like v4 and carries over the old /32s.

IgorPartola 1y ago
Oh my god are we back to trying to cram 8 bytes of data into a 4 byte field? You’d think people on a site called Hacker News would understand basic arithmetic.
- morshu9001 1y ago
  "ipv6 packet format" means 16 byte addr. Don't talk down to people.
  - IgorPartola 1y ago
    You are right but 8 bytes into 4 bytes sounded more on illustrative in my head. And while I try to make a point to be kind to people who do not know things, if you choose to express a clearly nonsensical opinion in such strong terms, on a forum that has discussed to death how you cannot cram more addresses into an IPv4 header, and something you can check for yourself so easily, yeah sorry you deserve a terse response of that’s not how bytes work. You did not bother to do 60 seconds of education before spouting this tired nonsense.
    - morshu9001 1y ago
      Seems like you misread. I said the compromise should use the ipv6 header, not ipv4 header. Discussed already with someone else here.
Dagger2 1y ago
It wasn't a whole redesign though? It has an identical network model to v4, routing and address assignment work the same way, it works over the same L2 links as v4, and L4 protocols like TCP and UDP all work the same. DNS is the same. The socket API is the same. Link-local addresses exist in v4 too, and v4 even had router advertisements already before v6 was even out. How is it a whole redesign? > Maybe a compromise will be reached in v7, like v6 packet format that otherwise acts like v4 and carries over the old /32s. This is, of course, impossible, because v4 only has 32 bits of space for src/dst addresses. You can't cram more than 32 bits into 32 bits. If it was possible we wouldn't have needed v6 in the first place.
- morshu9001 1y ago
  #1 is that they redid all the routes. v4 routes don't carry to v6, it's a separate network. The other things you're naming aren't L3. But they're still different for v6 because of the split network. There's a lot of other stuff that makes it not a seamless cutover. Randomly-assigned addressed, ULAs, no NAT by default, and all the other v6 extensions. What they could've done (and maybe will do) instead is just make a new thing with a larger address field but keep the rest the same.
  - Dagger2 1y ago
    They do carry into it though. My v6 packets to 64:ff9b::192.0.2.0/104 go to 192.0.2.0/24, and so do the ones to 2002:c000:200::/40. (And importantly the replies come back too, or would do if I wasn't using one of the v4 documentation ranges as an example.) Making a new thing that changes nothing but the address field size won't give you a seamless cutover, because there's no seamless way to use addresses bigger than 32 bits with v4. (If there was then we wouldn't have bothered with v6 in the first place, we would have just used whatever that method was!) Nothing much else has really changed in v6 -- v4 has ULAs and doesn't use NAT by default either, just when under address space exhaustion. The randomized addresses are a thing, but making a new protocol without them isn't going to produce something that's any easier to switch to, nor any more compatible with v4, than v6 already is.
    - 1y ago

IgorPartola 1y ago

Oh my god are we back to trying to cram 8 bytes of data into a 4 byte field? You’d think people on a site called Hacker News would understand basic arithmetic.

morshu9001 1y ago
"ipv6 packet format" means 16 byte addr. Don't talk down to people.
- IgorPartola 1y ago
  You are right but 8 bytes into 4 bytes sounded more on illustrative in my head. And while I try to make a point to be kind to people who do not know things, if you choose to express a clearly nonsensical opinion in such strong terms, on a forum that has discussed to death how you cannot cram more addresses into an IPv4 header, and something you can check for yourself so easily, yeah sorry you deserve a terse response of that’s not how bytes work. You did not bother to do 60 seconds of education before spouting this tired nonsense.
  - morshu9001 1y ago
    Seems like you misread. I said the compromise should use the ipv6 header, not ipv4 header. Discussed already with someone else here.

Dagger2 1y ago

It wasn't a whole redesign though? It has an identical network model to v4, routing and address assignment work the same way, it works over the same L2 links as v4, and L4 protocols like TCP and UDP all work the same. DNS is the same. The socket API is the same. Link-local addresses exist in v4 too, and v4 even had router advertisements already before v6 was even out. How is it a whole redesign? > Maybe a compromise will be reached in v7, like v6 packet format that otherwise acts like v4 and carries over the old /32s. This is, of course, impossible, because v4 only has 32 bits of space for src/dst addresses. You can't cram more than 32 bits into 32 bits. If it was possible we wouldn't have needed v6 in the first place.

morshu9001 1y ago
#1 is that they redid all the routes. v4 routes don't carry to v6, it's a separate network. The other things you're naming aren't L3. But they're still different for v6 because of the split network. There's a lot of other stuff that makes it not a seamless cutover. Randomly-assigned addressed, ULAs, no NAT by default, and all the other v6 extensions. What they could've done (and maybe will do) instead is just make a new thing with a larger address field but keep the rest the same.
- Dagger2 1y ago
  They do carry into it though. My v6 packets to 64:ff9b::192.0.2.0/104 go to 192.0.2.0/24, and so do the ones to 2002:c000:200::/40. (And importantly the replies come back too, or would do if I wasn't using one of the v4 documentation ranges as an example.) Making a new thing that changes nothing but the address field size won't give you a seamless cutover, because there's no seamless way to use addresses bigger than 32 bits with v4. (If there was then we wouldn't have bothered with v6 in the first place, we would have just used whatever that method was!) Nothing much else has really changed in v6 -- v4 has ULAs and doesn't use NAT by default either, just when under address space exhaustion. The randomized addresses are a thing, but making a new protocol without them isn't going to produce something that's any easier to switch to, nor any more compatible with v4, than v6 already is.
  - 1y ago