3 ms·
> It did nothing to solve the global routing table size problem Well, at the time it was designed there was no "global routing table size problem".
by jlgaddis 13y ago
> It did nothing to solve the global routing table size problem
Well, at the time it was designed there was no "global routing table size problem".
- exabrial 13y agoGood point actually... The problem is the "Global Routing table size problem" is a problem we actually have _right meow_, whereas the impending omg-out-of-ipv4-address problems is one that will stretch on for another 40+ years. If IPv6 actually solved the problem we have right now, people would adopt it. But IPv6 solves no current problems, it only creates new current problems. Anyway, I know IETF pisses vinegar all over NAT, but I'm hoping a grassroots effort pops up to solve the problem IPv6 should have actually solved. All we really need is forward-compatible extension to IPv4 that allows for easier incoming NAT traversal. A working solution would allow border routers to identify traffic belonging to an individual host on their network (in the private address space), while the client remains blissfully happy on traditional IPv4. The goal would be, merely update your border router to speak this extension to IPv4... rather than every device on your network and oh by the way, rewrite half the software you have that parses ipv4 addresses.
- zanny 13y agoCurrently I have to jump hoops through some bullcrap NAT maze of a public Internet to interact with anyone else. Properly distributed ipv6 addresses would fix that. So it does solve a problem I have now, in that I'd rather just tell people to click the accept connection button when I generate inbound traffic on their ipv6 address than to get them to figure out how to port forward off a router they have never touched the interface of before.