6 ms·

In retrospect I think just adding another 16 or 32 bits to V4 would have been fine, but I don’t disagree with you. V6 is fine and it works great. All the compl

• vbezhenar 6mo ago
  IPv4 is absolutely fine. Consumers can be behind NAT. That's fine. Servers can be behind reverse proxies, routing by DNS hostname. That's also fine. IPv4 address might be a valuable resource, shared between multiple users. Nothing wrong with it. Yes, it denies simple P2P connectivity. World doesn't need it. Consumers are behind firewalls either way. We need a way for consumers to connect to a server. That's all.
  • estimator7292 6mo ago
    Yeah, if you ignore literally every use of the internet except "check Facebook" then it's perfect. Unfortunately, the internet is used for a lot more than using one of the six gigantic centralized websites.
    • moffkalast 6mo ago
      I used to think that too, but outside of our niche bubble most people genuinely do only be web browsing. Speaking of that, why don't we just keep ipv4 for ourselves and let them eat ipv6?
      • betaby 6mo ago
        Most people browse Facebook/Youtube over IPv6 as a matter of fact and that work perfectly.
  • Lt_Riza_Hawkeye 6mo ago
    You're the reason I have to call my ISP to host a minecraft server for a couple of my friends.
    • mort96 6mo ago
      No, they're not. That's other weird policies specific to your ISP. With IPv4 + NAT, you have a public IP address. That public address goes to your router. Your router can forward any port to any machine on your LAN. I used to run Minecraft servers from a residential connection on IPv4, it was fine. Never had to call the ISP.
      • voxic11 6mo ago
        Nope, CGNAT means I need to call my ISP. We now have 2 levels of NAT because the IPv4 address situation has gotten so bad they can't even give every residence its own public IP. If your ISP hasn't adopted it yet its likely they got lucky and bought a ton of IPv4 addresses a long time ago when they were cheap and have decided using them is cheaper than upgrading their network to support CGNAT.
      • Symbiote 6mo ago
        This assumes the ISP allocates a public IPv4 address. In many countries they don't have enough, so you have CGNAT.
        • deleted 6mo ago
          [deleted]
        • mort96 6mo ago
          That's a fair point. In my mind, residential ISPs give out public IP addresses and CGNAT is just for cell phones. But I recognize that the philosophy of, "we don't need to solve IP address exhaustion, we just need to keep people able to access Facebook" leads to CGNAT or multi level NAT. Still, I do think that the solution of, "one IPv4 address per household + NAT" is a perfectly good system. I view the IPv6 mentality of giving each computer in the world a globally unique IPv6 address as a non-goal.
  • Fnoord 6mo ago
    IPv4 usage in its current state would've been much more limited and annoying in a world without IPv6. Therefore, IPv4 exists as-is thanks to others adopting IPv6.
  • RIMR 6mo ago
    > Yes, it denies simple P2P connectivity. World doesn't need it. Worth pointing out that this article was written by the now-CEO of Tailscale. I don't know if "The world doesn't need P2P connectivity" is a compelling take.
    • fc417fc802 6mo ago
      With the obligatory caveat that I am but a single datapoint, I use various P2P apps through multiple levels of NAT without issue and I very intentionally prevent devices on my local LAN from being publicly reachable. So it rings true to me. I do wish ISPs would refrain from intentionally breaking things though. It ought to be illegal for them to block specific ports or filter specific sorts of traffic absent a pressing and active security concern.
  • jrm4 6mo ago
    This comment exemplifies my worst fear and reinforces my somewhat incomplete idea that IPv4 is perhaps overall safer for the world, and that "worse is better" depending on what you're optimizing for. Roughly, it's my belief that an IPv6 world makes it easier for centralizing forces and harder for local p2p or p2p-esque ones; e.g. an IPv6 world would have likely made it easier to do bad things like "charge for individual internet user in a home." The decentralization of "routing power" is more a good thing than bad, what you pay for in complexity you get back in "power to the people."
    • deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    • MrDOS 6mo ago
      > easier to do bad things like "charge for individual internet user in a home." This idea comes up in every HN conversation about IPv6, and so I suppose this time it's my turn to point out RFC 8981[0]. tl;dr: typically, machines which receive IPv6 address assignment via SLAAC (functional equivalent of DHCP) periodically cycle their addresses. Supposed to offer pretty effective protection against host-counting. 0: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8981 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8981
  • deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  • throw0101a 6mo ago
    > IPv4 is absolutely fine. Consumers can be behind NAT. I don't want our communications infrastructures to be just for consumers.
  • kalleboo 6mo ago
    A lot of us don't like this "you will own nothing and you will be happy" kind of energy.
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• fortran77 6mo ago
  > Fixing the human readable address encoding would help Yes! They need an alternate encoding form that distills to the same addresses. My machines Link-local IPV6 address is "fe90::6329:c59:ad67:4b52%8" If I try to paste that into the address bar in Edge or Chrome (with the https://) it does an internet search on that string! No way around it. I have to do workarounds like: "http://fe90::6329:c59:ad67:4b52%8.ipv6-literal.net:8081/ http://fe90::6329:c59:ad67:4b52%8.ipv6-literal.net:8081/ All to test the IPv6 interface on a web server I'm running on my local machine.
  • pocksuppet 6mo ago
    An IPv6 literal hostname in a URL must be surrounded by square brackets.
    • fortran77 6mo ago
      Chrome and Edge still do a search on it in my default search engine even with [] https://[fe80::5ad6:9567:26b7:763b%18]:8081/ Even Hacker News doesn't think it's a link
      • deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
      • 1718627440 5mo ago
        On Mozilla Firefox after reenabling the separation into URL and searchbar it reports: "Invalid URL – Hmm. That address doesn’t look right. \n Please check that the URL is correct and try again." What does the '%' mean in there?
        • pocksuppet 5mo ago
          For link-local addresses, the part after % identifies the link. It's platform-specific - in Linux it's the interface name and in Windows it's an ID number.
  • Dagger2 6mo ago
• pocksuppet 6mo ago
  If you add new bits to v4 you invent an incompatible protocol, and you should add a lot of bits so you'll never have to invent another incompatible protocol again. You can also fix the minor annoyances in v4.
  • bombcar 6mo ago
    Flexible! The first byte tells you how many bytes of addressing you have. Perfect and future proof!
    • jasomill 6mo ago
      At best future-resistant. True future-proofing would require representing address length as an arbitrary-precision nonzero unsigned integer. Since allowing a zero-length network address format would serve no purpose other than to pointlessly complicate standards definitions, you could trivially and without loss of generality interpret zero to denote some extended-length address length representation to be defined in a future version of the standard.
    • tremon 5mo ago
      Hardware implementations typically do not like variable-size fields. Not just because the total header size becomes unpredictable, but because it means any following fields no longer have a fixed offset, and that complicates parsing.
• perennialmind 6mo ago
  IPv4 was designed with extension headers: it boggles my mind that simply using the headers to extend the address was never seriously considered. It was proposed: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1365.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1365.html It still would have been a ton of work, but we could have just had what IPv6 claimed to be: IPv4 with bigger addresses. Except after the upgrade, there'd be no parallel system. And all of DJB's points apply: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
  • api 6mo ago
    Here’s my understanding. The people involved in core Internet protocol design were used to the net being a largely walled garden of governments, corporations, universities, and a small number of BBSes and niche ISPs. Major protocol upgrades had happened before, not just for the core protocol but all kinds of other then-core services. It had been a while but not that long, I think less than 20 years, and last time it was pretty easy. They assumed they could design something better and phase it in and all the members of the Internet community would just do the right thing. That’s probably what made them feel they could push a more radical upgrade. Unfortunately they started this right as the massive tsunami of Internet commercialization hit. Since V6 was too new, everyone went with V4. Now all the sudden you had thousands of times more nodes, sites, and personnel, and all of them were steeped in IPv4 and rushing to ship on top of it. You also lost the small town atmosphere of the early net where admins were a club and could coordinate things. Had V6 launched five years earlier V4 would probably be dead. V6 usage will probably keep creeping up, but as it stands we will likely be dual stack forever. Once the installed user base and sunk cost is this high the design is fixed and can never be changed without a hard core heavy handed measure like a government mandate.
    • iknowstuff 6mo ago
      iOS is benefitted from a heavy handed mandate so that it and all of its apps sing on IPv6 only networks. They just need to expose IPv4 internet as IPv6 addresses.
    • pocksuppet 6mo ago
• pocksuppet 6mo ago
  You would have ended up with a protocol identical to IPv6, but with fewer address bits. If you add *any* address bits you've already broken protocol compatibility and you need to upgrade the entire world. While you're already upgrading the entire world, you should add so many address bits that we'll never need more, because it costs the same, and you may as well fix those other niggling problems as well, right?