6 ms·

Every year I just wish someone will come up with IPv4-with-more-bytes and we can switch to it before IPv6 gets another percent usage share.

by Galanwe 6mo ago

blueflow 6mo ago
IPv6 is IPv4 with 12 more bytes, right?
AndrewDucker 6mo ago
IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4. So you'd have to replace/upgrade every existing network stack, both hardware and software. To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- Galanwe 6mo ago
  > IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4 Neither is IPv6 > To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6 The only thing that IPv6 solves which is of interest to 99.99% of the users is having more adressable space. The rest of IPv6 features are either things that nobody asked for, or things which are genuinely worst compared to IPv4. I consider the mere fact of enabling IPv6 an unacceptable security risk, as I would now have to make sure my IPv4 and IPv6 firewall stack are perfectly mirroring each other. That would be trivial with IPv4-with-more-bytes, it's a nightmare with IPv6.
  - mrsssnake 6mo ago
    Do NAT64 and just worry about IPv6 if not wanting dual stack. All of IPv6 features are just direct effects of having more space and not. Basically IPv6 "features" is just getting rid of IPv4 workarounds.
  - vel0city 6mo ago
    > I would now have to make sure my IPv4 and IPv6 firewall stack are perfectly mirroring each other. You'd still have that in your IPv4-with-more-bytes, as you'll still probably end up running dual-stack to address those old-v4-only sites. Or you'd do the same with v6 and run a tunnel to translate those v4-only addresses to your v4-with-more-bytes. So you're in the same situation either way.
- mprovost 6mo ago
  There were backwards-compatible protocols proposed, such as EIP, but the committee chose a backwards-incompatible protocol for v6. Their assumption was that v4 would run out of space in a single-digit number of years and everyone would be forced to migrate. The past 30 years have shown that not to be the case. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1385 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1385
  - Dagger2 6mo ago
    They went with SIPP, which was one of the backwards-compatible options. It should be kind of obvious from the vast number of backwards compatibility methods available in v6 that v6 is actually backwards compatible... but for some reason a lot of people either refuse to believe this or have double standards around what counts as compatibility.
pocksuppet 6mo ago
That's what IPv6 is. People get so fixated on being annoyed at IPv6 they forget to actually think. Whatever you invent won't be any better than IPv6. Many people have tried. If you change the address format even the tiniest amount, if you add one single additional bit, your new protocol is already completely incompatible with all existing IPv4 software and equipment.

Every year I just wish someone will come up with IPv4-with-more-bytes and we can switch to it before IPv6 gets another percent usage share.

by Galanwe 6mo ago

Every year I just wish someone will come up with IPv4-with-more-bytes and we can switch to it before IPv6 gets another percent usage share.

blueflow 6mo ago

IPv6 is IPv4 with 12 more bytes, right?

AndrewDucker 6mo ago

IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4. So you'd have to replace/upgrade every existing network stack, both hardware and software. To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
Galanwe 6mo ago
> IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4 Neither is IPv6 > To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6 The only thing that IPv6 solves which is of interest to 99.99% of the users is having more adressable space. The rest of IPv6 features are either things that nobody asked for, or things which are genuinely worst compared to IPv4. I consider the mere fact of enabling IPv6 an unacceptable security risk, as I would now have to make sure my IPv4 and IPv6 firewall stack are perfectly mirroring each other. That would be trivial with IPv4-with-more-bytes, it's a nightmare with IPv6.
- mrsssnake 6mo ago
  Do NAT64 and just worry about IPv6 if not wanting dual stack. All of IPv6 features are just direct effects of having more space and not. Basically IPv6 "features" is just getting rid of IPv4 workarounds.
- vel0city 6mo ago
  > I would now have to make sure my IPv4 and IPv6 firewall stack are perfectly mirroring each other. You'd still have that in your IPv4-with-more-bytes, as you'll still probably end up running dual-stack to address those old-v4-only sites. Or you'd do the same with v6 and run a tunnel to translate those v4-only addresses to your v4-with-more-bytes. So you're in the same situation either way.
mprovost 6mo ago
There were backwards-compatible protocols proposed, such as EIP, but the committee chose a backwards-incompatible protocol for v6. Their assumption was that v4 would run out of space in a single-digit number of years and everyone would be forced to migrate. The past 30 years have shown that not to be the case. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1385 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1385
- Dagger2 6mo ago
  They went with SIPP, which was one of the backwards-compatible options. It should be kind of obvious from the vast number of backwards compatibility methods available in v6 that v6 is actually backwards compatible... but for some reason a lot of people either refuse to believe this or have double standards around what counts as compatibility.

pocksuppet 6mo ago

That's what IPv6 is. People get so fixated on being annoyed at IPv6 they forget to actually think. Whatever you invent won't be any better than IPv6. Many people have tried. If you change the address format even the tiniest amount, if you add one single additional bit, your new protocol is already completely incompatible with all existing IPv4 software and equipment.