6 ms·

> You still need a dual stack configuration though, there's nothing getting around that when you change the address space Yes there is, at least outside of the

by iso1631 7mo ago

> You still need a dual stack configuration though, there's nothing getting around that when you change the address space Yes there is, at least outside of the machine. All you need to do is have an internal network (100.64/16, 169.254/16, wherever) local to the machine. If you machine is on say 2001::1, then when an application attempts to listen on an ipv4 address it opens a socket listening on 2001::1 instead, and when an application writes a packet to 1.0.0.1, your OS translates it to ::ffff:100:1. This can be even more hidden than things like internal docker networks. Your network then has a route to ::ffff:0:0/96 via a gateway (typically just the default router), with a source of 2001::1 When the packet arrives at a router with v6 and v4 on (assume your v4 address is 2.2.2.2), that does a 6:4 translation, just like a router does v4:v4 nat The packet then runs over the v4 network until it reaches 1.0.0.1 with a source of 2.2.2.2, and a response is sent back to 2.2.2.2 where it is de-natted to a destination of 2001:1 and source of ::ffff:100.1 That way you don't need to change any application unless you want to reach ipv6 only devices, you don't need to run separate ipv4 and ipv6 stacks on your routers, and you can migrate easilly, with no more overhead than a typical 44 nat for rfc1918 devices. Likewise you can serve on your ipv6 only devices by listening on 2001::1 port 80, and having a nat which port forwards traffic coming to 2.2.2.2:80 to 2001::1 port 80 with a source of ::ffff:(whatever) (using colons as a deliminator wasn't great either, you end up with http://[2001::1]:80/ which is horrible)

simoncion 7mo ago
> ...you end up with http://[2001::1]:80/ which is horrible That is horrible, but you do no longer have any possibility of confusion between an IP address and a hostname/domain-name/whatever-it's-called. So, yeah, benefits and detriments. > Your network then has a route to ::ffff:0:0/96 via a gateway... I keep forgetting about IPv4-mapped addresses. Thanks for reminding me of them with this writeup. I should really get around to playing with them some day soon.
- simoncion 7mo ago
  So, I bothered to play around with these addresses. I find myself a little confused by what you wrote. > If you machine is on say 2001::1, then when an application attempts to listen on an ipv4 address it opens a socket listening on 2001::1 instead, and when an application writes a packet to 1.0.0.1, your OS translates it to ::ffff:100:1. ... > Your network then has a route to ::ffff:0:0/96 via a gateway (typically just the default router), with a source of 2001::1 What's the name of this translation mechanism that you're talking about? It seems to be the important part of the system. I ask because when I visit [0] in Firefox on a Linux system with both globally-routable IPv6 and locally-routable IPv4 addresses configured, I see a TCP conversation with the remote IPv4 address 192.168.2.2. When I remove the IPv4 address (and the IPv4 default route) from the local host, I get immediate failures... neither v4 nor v6 traffic is made. When I add the route it looks like you suggested I add ip route add ::ffff:0:0/96 dev eth0 via <$DEFAULT_IPV6_GATEWAY_IP> I see the route in my routing table, but I get exactly the same results... no IPv4 or IPv6 traffic. Based on my testing, it looks like this is only a way to represent IPv4 addresses as IPv6 addresses, as ::ffff:192.168.2.2 gets translated into ::ffff:c0a8:202, but the OS uses that to create IPv4 traffic. If your system doesn't have an IPv4 address configured on it, then this doesn't seem to help you at all. What am I missing? [0] <http://[::ffff:192.168.2.2]/ http://[::ffff:192.168.2.2]/>
  - iso1631 7mo ago
    You make Nat46 part of the OS network stack. You make nat64 part of the typical router. > I ask because when I visit [0] in Firefox on a Linux system with both globally-routable IPv6 and locally-routable IPv4 addresses configured, I see a TCP conversation with the remote IPv4 address 192.168.2.2. When I remove the IPv4 address (and the IPv4 default route) from the local host, I get immediate failures... neither v4 nor v6 traffic is made. Yes, that's the failure of ipv6 deployment. Imagine you have two vlans, one ipv4 only, one ipv6 only. There's a router sitting across both vlans. VLAN1 - ipv6 only Router 2001::1 Device A 2001::1234 VLAN2 - ipv4 only Router 192.168.1.1 Device B 192.168.1.2 Device A pings 192.168.1.2, the OS converts that transparently to ::ffff:192.168.1.2, it sends it to its default router 2001::1 That router does a 6>4 translation, converting the destination to 192.168.1.2 and the source to 192.168.1.1 (or however it's configured) It maintains the protocol/port/address in its state as any ipv4 natting router would do, and the response is "unnatted" as an "established connection" (with connection also applying for icmp/udp as v4 nat does today) An application on Device A has no need to be ipv6 aware. The A record in DNS which resolves to 192.168.1.2 is reachable from device A despite it not having a V4 address. The hard coded IP database in it works fine. Now if Device B wants to reach Device A, it uses traditional port forwarding on the router, where 192.168.1.1:80 is forwarded to [2001::1234]:80, with source of ::ffff:192.168.1.2 With this in place, there is no need to update any applications, and certainly no need for dual stack. The missing bits are the lack of common 64/46 natting -- I don't believe it's built into the normal linux network chain like v4 nat is, and the lack of transparent upgrading of v4 handling on an OS level.
    - simoncion 7mo ago
      Ah. So, you're saying that what you describe doesn't actually exist. That the best you can currently do is stuff like [0] and [1] where the IPv4 or IPv6 client use v4 or v6 addresses (respectively) and an intermediary sets up a fake destination IP on both ingress and egress and does the v4 <-> v6 address translation. If so, that was not at all clear from your original comment. [0] <https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/7.6.1/administration-guide/429055/nat46-policy https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/7.6.1/administr...> [1] <https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/7.6.1/administration-guide/443324/nat64-policy-and-dns64-dns-proxy https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/7.6.1/administr...>
- iso1631 7mo ago
  Using almost anything but : would have been fine. Could have used 2001~1001~~1 instead of 2001:1001::1, which looks weird today, but wouldn't have done if that had been chosen all those years ago. (unless : as an ipv6 separator predates its use as a separator for tcp/udp ports, in which case tcp/udp should have used ~. Other symbols are available)

by iso1631 7mo ago

simoncion 7mo ago

> ...you end up with http://[2001::1]:80/ which is horrible That is horrible, but you do no longer have any possibility of confusion between an IP address and a hostname/domain-name/whatever-it's-called. So, yeah, benefits and detriments. > Your network then has a route to ::ffff:0:0/96 via a gateway... I keep forgetting about IPv4-mapped addresses. Thanks for reminding me of them with this writeup. I should really get around to playing with them some day soon.

simoncion 7mo ago
So, I bothered to play around with these addresses. I find myself a little confused by what you wrote. > If you machine is on say 2001::1, then when an application attempts to listen on an ipv4 address it opens a socket listening on 2001::1 instead, and when an application writes a packet to 1.0.0.1, your OS translates it to ::ffff:100:1. ... > Your network then has a route to ::ffff:0:0/96 via a gateway (typically just the default router), with a source of 2001::1 What's the name of this translation mechanism that you're talking about? It seems to be the important part of the system. I ask because when I visit [0] in Firefox on a Linux system with both globally-routable IPv6 and locally-routable IPv4 addresses configured, I see a TCP conversation with the remote IPv4 address 192.168.2.2. When I remove the IPv4 address (and the IPv4 default route) from the local host, I get immediate failures... neither v4 nor v6 traffic is made. When I add the route it looks like you suggested I add ip route add ::ffff:0:0/96 dev eth0 via <$DEFAULT_IPV6_GATEWAY_IP> I see the route in my routing table, but I get exactly the same results... no IPv4 or IPv6 traffic. Based on my testing, it looks like this is only a way to represent IPv4 addresses as IPv6 addresses, as ::ffff:192.168.2.2 gets translated into ::ffff:c0a8:202, but the OS uses that to create IPv4 traffic. If your system doesn't have an IPv4 address configured on it, then this doesn't seem to help you at all. What am I missing? [0] <http://[::ffff:192.168.2.2]/ http://[::ffff:192.168.2.2]/>
- iso1631 7mo ago
  You make Nat46 part of the OS network stack. You make nat64 part of the typical router. > I ask because when I visit [0] in Firefox on a Linux system with both globally-routable IPv6 and locally-routable IPv4 addresses configured, I see a TCP conversation with the remote IPv4 address 192.168.2.2. When I remove the IPv4 address (and the IPv4 default route) from the local host, I get immediate failures... neither v4 nor v6 traffic is made. Yes, that's the failure of ipv6 deployment. Imagine you have two vlans, one ipv4 only, one ipv6 only. There's a router sitting across both vlans. VLAN1 - ipv6 only Router 2001::1 Device A 2001::1234 VLAN2 - ipv4 only Router 192.168.1.1 Device B 192.168.1.2 Device A pings 192.168.1.2, the OS converts that transparently to ::ffff:192.168.1.2, it sends it to its default router 2001::1 That router does a 6>4 translation, converting the destination to 192.168.1.2 and the source to 192.168.1.1 (or however it's configured) It maintains the protocol/port/address in its state as any ipv4 natting router would do, and the response is "unnatted" as an "established connection" (with connection also applying for icmp/udp as v4 nat does today) An application on Device A has no need to be ipv6 aware. The A record in DNS which resolves to 192.168.1.2 is reachable from device A despite it not having a V4 address. The hard coded IP database in it works fine. Now if Device B wants to reach Device A, it uses traditional port forwarding on the router, where 192.168.1.1:80 is forwarded to [2001::1234]:80, with source of ::ffff:192.168.1.2 With this in place, there is no need to update any applications, and certainly no need for dual stack. The missing bits are the lack of common 64/46 natting -- I don't believe it's built into the normal linux network chain like v4 nat is, and the lack of transparent upgrading of v4 handling on an OS level.
  - simoncion 7mo ago
    Ah. So, you're saying that what you describe doesn't actually exist. That the best you can currently do is stuff like [0] and [1] where the IPv4 or IPv6 client use v4 or v6 addresses (respectively) and an intermediary sets up a fake destination IP on both ingress and egress and does the v4 <-> v6 address translation. If so, that was not at all clear from your original comment. [0] <https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/7.6.1/administration-guide/429055/nat46-policy https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/7.6.1/administr...> [1] <https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/7.6.1/administration-guide/443324/nat64-policy-and-dns64-dns-proxy https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/7.6.1/administr...>
iso1631 7mo ago
Using almost anything but : would have been fine. Could have used 2001~1001~~1 instead of 2001:1001::1, which looks weird today, but wouldn't have done if that had been chosen all those years ago. (unless : as an ipv6 separator predates its use as a separator for tcp/udp ports, in which case tcp/udp should have used ~. Other symbols are available)