3 ms·

Of course not. But IPv6 is not the solution to Ipv4's issues at all. IPv6 is something completely different justified post-facto with EMOTIONAL arguments ie.

Of course not. But IPv6 is not the solution to Ipv4's issues at all. IPv6 is something completely different justified post-facto with EMOTIONAL arguments ie. You are stealing the last IPv4 address from the children! - Dual stack -- unnecessary and bloated - Performance = 4x worse or more - No NAT or private networks -- not in the same sense. People love to hate on NAT but I do not want my toaster on the internet with a unique hardware serial number. - Hardware tracking built into the protocol -- the mitigations offered are BS. - Addresses are a congintive block - Forces people to use DNS (central) which acts as a censorship choke point. All we needed was an extra pre space to set WHICH address space - ie. '0' is the old internet in 0.0.0.0.10 --- backwards compatible, not dual stack, no privacy nightmare, etc I actually wrote a code project that implements this network as an overlay -- but it's not ready to share yet. Works though. If I were to imagine my self in the room deciding on the IPv6 requirements I expect the key one was 'track every person and every device every where all the time' because if you are just trying to expand the address space then IPv6 is way way way overkill -- it's overkill even for future proofing for the next 1000 years of all that privacy invading.

bluGill 10mo ago
> All we needed was an extra pre space to set WHICH address space - ie. '0' is the old internet in 0.0.0.0.10 --- backwards compatible, not dual stack, no privacy nightmare, etc That is what we have in ipv6. What you write sounds good/easy on paper, but when you look at how networks are really implemented you realize it is impossible to do that. Networks packets have to obey the laws of bits and bytes and there isn't any place to put that extra 0 in ipv4: no matter what you have to create a new ipv6. They did write a standard for how to send ipv4 addresses in ipv6, but anyone who doesn't have ipv6 themselves can't use that and so we must dual stack until everyone transitions.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- arthurfirst 10mo ago
  Actually there is a place to put it... I didn't want to get into this but since you asked: My prototype/thought experiment is called IPv40 a 40bit extension to IPv4. IPv40 addresses are carried over Legacy networks using the IPv4 Options Field (Type 35) Legacy routers ignore Option 35 and route based on the 32-bit destination (effectively forcing traffic to "Space 0". IPv40-aware routers parse Option 35 to switch Universes. This works right now but as a software overlay not in hardware. Just my programming/thought experiment which was pretty fun. When solutions are pushed top down like IPv6 my spider sense tingles -- what problem is it solving? the answers are NOT 'to address address space limitations of IPv4' that is the marketing and if you challenge it you will be met with ad hominen attacks and emotional manipulations.
  - bluGill 10mo ago
    You didn't save anything as everyone needs to know the new extension before anyone can use it. Hardware is important - fast routers can't do work in the CPU (and it was even worse in the mid 90's when this started), they need special hardware assistance.
    - arthurfirst 10mo ago
      All good points guys -- but my point was to see what is possible. And it was. And it was fun! Of course I know it will perform poorly and it's not hardware.
  - icedchai 10mo ago
    So you have to update every router to actually route the "non-legacy" addresses correctly. How is this different from IPv6?
    - bluGill 10mo ago
      That is the easy part - most of the core routers have supported ipv6 for decades - IIRC many are IPv6 only on the backbone. The hard part is if there is even one client that doesn't have the update you can't use the new non-legacy addresses as it can't talk to you. Just like today, it is likely that most client will support your new address, but ISPs won't route them for you.
hylaride 10mo ago
I almost completely agree with you, but IPv6 isn't going anywhere - it's our only real alternative. Any other new standard would take decades to implement even if a new standard is agreed on. Core routers would need to be replaced with new devices with ASICs to do hardware routing, etc. It's just far too late. I still shake my head at IPV6's committee driven development, though. My god, the original RFCs had IPSEC support as mandatory and the auto-configuration had no support for added fields (DNS servers, etc). It's like the committee was only made up of network engineers. The whole SLAAC vs DHCP6 drama was painful to see play out. That being said, most modern IPv6 implementations no longer derive the link-local portion from the hardware MAC addresses (and even then, many modern devices such as phones randomize their hardware addresses for wifi/bluetooth to prevent tracking). So the privacy portions aren't as much of a concern anymore. Javascript fingerprinting is far more of an issue there.
- arthurfirst 10mo ago
  > still shake my head at IPV6's committee driven development, though. My god, the original RFCs had IPSEC support as mandatory and the auto-configuration had no support for added fields (DNS servers, etc). It's like the committee was only made up of network engineers. The whole SLAAC vs DHCP6 drama was painful to see play out. So true. > That being said, most modern IPv6 implementations no longer derive the link-local portion from the hardware MAC addresses (and even then, many modern devices such as phones randomize their hardware addresses for wifi/bluetooth to prevent tracking). So the privacy portions aren't as much of a concern anymore. Javascript fingerprinting is far more of an issue there JS Fingerprinting is a huge issue. Honestly if IPv6 was just for the internet of things I'd ignore it. Since it's pushed on to every machine and you are essentially forced to use it -- with no direct benefit to the end user -- I have a big problem with it. So it's not strictly needed for YOU, but it solves some problems that are not a problem for YOU, and also happens to address space. I do not think the 'fixes' to IPv6 do enough to address my privacy concerns, particularly with a well-resourced adversary. Seems like they just raised the bar a little. Why even bother? Tell me why I must use it without resorting to 'you will be unable to access IPv6 hosted services!' or 'think of the children!?' -- both emotional manipulations.

bluGill 10mo ago

> All we needed was an extra pre space to set WHICH address space - ie. '0' is the old internet in 0.0.0.0.10 --- backwards compatible, not dual stack, no privacy nightmare, etc That is what we have in ipv6. What you write sounds good/easy on paper, but when you look at how networks are really implemented you realize it is impossible to do that. Networks packets have to obey the laws of bits and bytes and there isn't any place to put that extra 0 in ipv4: no matter what you have to create a new ipv6. They did write a standard for how to send ipv4 addresses in ipv6, but anyone who doesn't have ipv6 themselves can't use that and so we must dual stack until everyone transitions.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
arthurfirst 10mo ago
Actually there is a place to put it... I didn't want to get into this but since you asked: My prototype/thought experiment is called IPv40 a 40bit extension to IPv4. IPv40 addresses are carried over Legacy networks using the IPv4 Options Field (Type 35) Legacy routers ignore Option 35 and route based on the 32-bit destination (effectively forcing traffic to "Space 0". IPv40-aware routers parse Option 35 to switch Universes. This works right now but as a software overlay not in hardware. Just my programming/thought experiment which was pretty fun. When solutions are pushed top down like IPv6 my spider sense tingles -- what problem is it solving? the answers are NOT 'to address address space limitations of IPv4' that is the marketing and if you challenge it you will be met with ad hominen attacks and emotional manipulations.
- bluGill 10mo ago
  You didn't save anything as everyone needs to know the new extension before anyone can use it. Hardware is important - fast routers can't do work in the CPU (and it was even worse in the mid 90's when this started), they need special hardware assistance.
  - arthurfirst 10mo ago
    All good points guys -- but my point was to see what is possible. And it was. And it was fun! Of course I know it will perform poorly and it's not hardware.
- icedchai 10mo ago
  So you have to update every router to actually route the "non-legacy" addresses correctly. How is this different from IPv6?
  - bluGill 10mo ago
    That is the easy part - most of the core routers have supported ipv6 for decades - IIRC many are IPv6 only on the backbone. The hard part is if there is even one client that doesn't have the update you can't use the new non-legacy addresses as it can't talk to you. Just like today, it is likely that most client will support your new address, but ISPs won't route them for you.

hylaride 10mo ago

I almost completely agree with you, but IPv6 isn't going anywhere - it's our only real alternative. Any other new standard would take decades to implement even if a new standard is agreed on. Core routers would need to be replaced with new devices with ASICs to do hardware routing, etc. It's just far too late. I still shake my head at IPV6's committee driven development, though. My god, the original RFCs had IPSEC support as mandatory and the auto-configuration had no support for added fields (DNS servers, etc). It's like the committee was only made up of network engineers. The whole SLAAC vs DHCP6 drama was painful to see play out. That being said, most modern IPv6 implementations no longer derive the link-local portion from the hardware MAC addresses (and even then, many modern devices such as phones randomize their hardware addresses for wifi/bluetooth to prevent tracking). So the privacy portions aren't as much of a concern anymore. Javascript fingerprinting is far more of an issue there.

arthurfirst 10mo ago
> still shake my head at IPV6's committee driven development, though. My god, the original RFCs had IPSEC support as mandatory and the auto-configuration had no support for added fields (DNS servers, etc). It's like the committee was only made up of network engineers. The whole SLAAC vs DHCP6 drama was painful to see play out. So true. > That being said, most modern IPv6 implementations no longer derive the link-local portion from the hardware MAC addresses (and even then, many modern devices such as phones randomize their hardware addresses for wifi/bluetooth to prevent tracking). So the privacy portions aren't as much of a concern anymore. Javascript fingerprinting is far more of an issue there JS Fingerprinting is a huge issue. Honestly if IPv6 was just for the internet of things I'd ignore it. Since it's pushed on to every machine and you are essentially forced to use it -- with no direct benefit to the end user -- I have a big problem with it. So it's not strictly needed for YOU, but it solves some problems that are not a problem for YOU, and also happens to address space. I do not think the 'fixes' to IPv6 do enough to address my privacy concerns, particularly with a well-resourced adversary. Seems like they just raised the bar a little. Why even bother? Tell me why I must use it without resorting to 'you will be unable to access IPv6 hosted services!' or 'think of the children!?' -- both emotional manipulations.