6 ms·

I have it switched off on most networks and servers including my home network. I just don't need it here and I have zero to do with asia. I wish they had just

I have it switched off on most networks and servers including my home network. I just don't need it here and I have zero to do with asia. I wish they had just made an IPv5 though. With e.g. 6 bytes instead of 4. 65535 times the current internet should be plenty. I feel like IPv6 is overengineered and I'm glad it didn't take off yet. I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. If I ever do switch it on on my home network I'll probably use NAT on the router so I can still keep it exclusively IPv4 internally on the network. I first learned about IPv6 when I was studying (1993) and I already felt like it was an overengineered monstrosity back then. They were campaigning like it would be the internet next year. Well that aged well, lol. That's now 33 years ago. I truly think that if they had made it simpler and more IPv4 compatible we would have been moved over in 2-3 years. But no they had to keep supporting this thing. Well, at this point I'm going to avoid playing ball as long as I can.

eddd-ddde 4mo ago
> I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. This is even easier with IPv6. At work we have a bunch of test devices, and you calculate the IPv6 from the device's serial number. Simple as that, no memorization at all.
- wolvoleo 4mo ago
  But for an IPv4 device I only have to remember one number :) And nothing to do with a long random serial number.
  - lambdaone 4mo ago
    <prefix>::1, <prefix>::2, <prefix>::3, <prefix>::4... exactly how hard can that be? Or if you're feeling playful, <prefix>::b0d, <prefix>::bed, <prefix>::dad, <prefix>::b1d...
    - wolvoleo 4mo ago
      The prefix is too long and it's not the same at every site. When I'm at a different location, the biggest problem is usually figuring out if they use 192.168.0 or 192.168.1 :)
      - tcfhgj 4mo ago
        lucky you, IPV6 indeed uses the same prefix everywhere: fe80::
        vaylian 4mo ago
        Nitpick: The subnet fe80/10 is for link-local addresses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address#IPv6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address#IPv6). However, it is not an analog to the RFC 1918 IPv4 subnetworks. 192.168/16 is a private IPv4 subnet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network#IPv4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network#IPv4) and the equivalent for IPv6 is the fd00/8 subnet (RFC 4193).
        brewmarche 4mo ago
        And with ULAs (fd00::/8) you can pick your own prefix. Officially you should pick a random one to prevent collisions when you connect private networks, but you can choose something memorable if you don’t care about that
lambdaone 4mo ago
A changeover to your IPv5 would be just as agonizing as the changeover to IPv6. A system with a larger address space is fundamentally uninteroperable with one with a smaller address space as there is nowhere to put the extra bits in the old protocol. The lack of motivation to move to the new protocol would also be just the same. And as for memorization: do you actually memorize MAC addresses for your interfaces? The answer is no, you don't, becase ARP handles all that for you. Well, for IPv6, DNS, mDNS and so on handles all that for both your IPv4 and your IPv6 addresses - or should, if you know what you are doing, as memorizing IPs doesn't really scale beyond a few dozen machines. Yes, IPv6 is overengineered, but it gets the pain of having larger addresses in the packet done once and for all - the odds of needing more than 128 bits in the rest of human history are very small indeed. And if something radically new needs to replace the current IPv6 architecture, which is much more likely, the extra address bits are already there; only 2000::/3 is assigned for public use so far, and the new addresses would fit in the current IPv6 packet format already.
- wolvoleo 4mo ago
  Yeah but that ridiculous overdimensioning is something I object to. There's more IPs than is needed to give each grain of sand on this planet its whole IPv4-sized internet. That's just overkill. And the problem seems to be solving itself as the world is turning its back on globalism. China and North Korea already have separated themselves. Iran too. China still uses the same address space but it's not like there's open connectivity with the rest of the world. We'll probably cut off Russia at some point completely as part of some sanction (they've been preparing for that for years), and Europe will break with America if things continue. We'll just have interoperability at a few controlled border points then, like China already does with its great firewall. It'll be easy to do some address translation then. Ps that's not something I'm necessarily happy about but I do see this trend emerging of every region trying to wall itself off.
  - vaylian 4mo ago
    > Yeah but that ridiculous overdimensioning is something I object to. There's more IPs than is needed to give each grain of sand on this planet its whole IPv4-sized internet. That's just overkill. People also thought that 4 byte wide IPv4 Adresses would be large enough. It's really hard to estimate how much you will need. And because numbers are effectively a free resource, it is better to overestimate. IPv6 also gives you shortcuts to write addresses. You can abbreviate the longest run of zeroes with `::` and leading zeroes within a hextet can be omitted. This makes IPv6 address notation elastic.
the_real_cher 4mo ago
I dont think its that over engineered for what its capable of.
- mahboi 4mo ago
  That's what overengineered implies, it's capable of things you don't need. The problem with v6 isn't 128-bit addrs though.
  - the_real_cher 4mo ago
    Oh right on. The 128 bit addrs was what I was referring to. I find it pretty intuitive. I don't know much more about the spec so please forgive my ignorance.
Hikikomori 4mo ago
An IPv5 would have all the same issues switching over to it. Its been proposed so many times over the years.
- zadikian 4mo ago
  Not necessarily. I've gone down this rabbit hole in another thread, tldr there are alternatives that would've been easier initially but with the downside of leaving the routes fragmented.
  - Hikikomori 4mo ago
    Nuh uh.
mahboi 4mo ago
If they're going to make ipv5, might as well make it 8 bytes instead of 4
matja 4mo ago
> I feel like IPv6 is overengineered In what metrics? IPv6 is more simple to implement than IPv4. In Linux 7.1.1 IPv4 is 84kLOC, IPv6 is 59kLOC.

eddd-ddde 4mo ago

> I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. This is even easier with IPv6. At work we have a bunch of test devices, and you calculate the IPv6 from the device's serial number. Simple as that, no memorization at all.

wolvoleo 4mo ago
But for an IPv4 device I only have to remember one number :) And nothing to do with a long random serial number.
- lambdaone 4mo ago
  <prefix>::1, <prefix>::2, <prefix>::3, <prefix>::4... exactly how hard can that be? Or if you're feeling playful, <prefix>::b0d, <prefix>::bed, <prefix>::dad, <prefix>::b1d...
  - wolvoleo 4mo ago
    The prefix is too long and it's not the same at every site. When I'm at a different location, the biggest problem is usually figuring out if they use 192.168.0 or 192.168.1 :)
    - tcfhgj 4mo ago
      lucky you, IPV6 indeed uses the same prefix everywhere: fe80::
      - vaylian 4mo ago
        Nitpick: The subnet fe80/10 is for link-local addresses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address#IPv6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address#IPv6). However, it is not an analog to the RFC 1918 IPv4 subnetworks. 192.168/16 is a private IPv4 subnet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network#IPv4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network#IPv4) and the equivalent for IPv6 is the fd00/8 subnet (RFC 4193).
        brewmarche 4mo ago
        And with ULAs (fd00::/8) you can pick your own prefix. Officially you should pick a random one to prevent collisions when you connect private networks, but you can choose something memorable if you don’t care about that

lambdaone 4mo ago

A changeover to your IPv5 would be just as agonizing as the changeover to IPv6. A system with a larger address space is fundamentally uninteroperable with one with a smaller address space as there is nowhere to put the extra bits in the old protocol. The lack of motivation to move to the new protocol would also be just the same. And as for memorization: do you actually memorize MAC addresses for your interfaces? The answer is no, you don't, becase ARP handles all that for you. Well, for IPv6, DNS, mDNS and so on handles all that for both your IPv4 and your IPv6 addresses - or should, if you know what you are doing, as memorizing IPs doesn't really scale beyond a few dozen machines. Yes, IPv6 is overengineered, but it gets the pain of having larger addresses in the packet done once and for all - the odds of needing more than 128 bits in the rest of human history are very small indeed. And if something radically new needs to replace the current IPv6 architecture, which is much more likely, the extra address bits are already there; only 2000::/3 is assigned for public use so far, and the new addresses would fit in the current IPv6 packet format already.

wolvoleo 4mo ago
Yeah but that ridiculous overdimensioning is something I object to. There's more IPs than is needed to give each grain of sand on this planet its whole IPv4-sized internet. That's just overkill. And the problem seems to be solving itself as the world is turning its back on globalism. China and North Korea already have separated themselves. Iran too. China still uses the same address space but it's not like there's open connectivity with the rest of the world. We'll probably cut off Russia at some point completely as part of some sanction (they've been preparing for that for years), and Europe will break with America if things continue. We'll just have interoperability at a few controlled border points then, like China already does with its great firewall. It'll be easy to do some address translation then. Ps that's not something I'm necessarily happy about but I do see this trend emerging of every region trying to wall itself off.
- vaylian 4mo ago
  > Yeah but that ridiculous overdimensioning is something I object to. There's more IPs than is needed to give each grain of sand on this planet its whole IPv4-sized internet. That's just overkill. People also thought that 4 byte wide IPv4 Adresses would be large enough. It's really hard to estimate how much you will need. And because numbers are effectively a free resource, it is better to overestimate. IPv6 also gives you shortcuts to write addresses. You can abbreviate the longest run of zeroes with `::` and leading zeroes within a hextet can be omitted. This makes IPv6 address notation elastic.

the_real_cher 4mo ago

I dont think its that over engineered for what its capable of.

mahboi 4mo ago
That's what overengineered implies, it's capable of things you don't need. The problem with v6 isn't 128-bit addrs though.
- the_real_cher 4mo ago
  Oh right on. The 128 bit addrs was what I was referring to. I find it pretty intuitive. I don't know much more about the spec so please forgive my ignorance.

Hikikomori 4mo ago

An IPv5 would have all the same issues switching over to it. Its been proposed so many times over the years.

zadikian 4mo ago
Not necessarily. I've gone down this rabbit hole in another thread, tldr there are alternatives that would've been easier initially but with the downside of leaving the routes fragmented.
- Hikikomori 4mo ago
  Nuh uh.

mahboi 4mo ago

If they're going to make ipv5, might as well make it 8 bytes instead of 4

matja 4mo ago

> I feel like IPv6 is overengineered In what metrics? IPv6 is more simple to implement than IPv4. In Linux 7.1.1 IPv4 is 84kLOC, IPv6 is 59kLOC.