Dagger2

23 ms·

361.
by Dagger2 3y ago
Your scheme already exists, although instead of using the first octet of the IP address it uses a 41 in the protocol field, so it doesn't need to eat an entire /8. Routers can see the 41 as a flag and then read the v6 address from
362.
by Dagger2 3y ago
Easy, yes, but not exactly correct and certainly not helpful in the slightest.
363.
by Dagger2 3y ago
It gets downvoted because it's stupid and unhelpful. If your body has the wrong idea of how much fat it should store, it'll do its best to force you to eat more to get that fat, even if it makes you unhealthily overweight. Medicat
364.
by Dagger2 3y ago
How is that not what we're already doing? Almost everyone with a v6 stack still has the exact same v4 address they had before, using the exact same routing as v4. Old DNS entries are still valid, NAT's still common. The only diffe
365.
by Dagger2 3y ago
That's because there are good reasons for running it in the recommended way. If you're going to go out of your way to run it in bad, unpopular ways instead then it's on you to get devices that support what you're trying
366.
by Dagger2 3y ago
> Even if I turn off v4.0, I'm still reachable at the same address on v4.1. This is not the case with v6. That's the problem. That's not the problem. Being reachable "at the same address on v4.1" (or v6) does no
367.
by Dagger2 3y ago
Uh... what. You don't lose control at the router level. v6 isn't anti-privacy and there's no privacy slaughter in it. RAs have no privacy impact and SLAAC makes no meaningful difference.
368.
by Dagger2 3y ago
That wouldn't be simple or compatible, but also... v6 basically already has what you're suggesting here, except forget every AS: every single v4 address already has a /48 of v6 space tunnelled to it.
369.
by Dagger2 3y ago
And every time people explain why the idea is either impossible or describing v6's existing behavior. At what point do these posts become trolling?
370.
by Dagger2 3y ago
I really don't get why it's terrifying. Maybe it would help to just do it rather than reading docs about it? As an example, let's say your ISP gives you the details: WAN IP: 2001:db8:ffff:200::2/64 (like "203.
371.
by Dagger2 3y ago
CF is capable of reverse proxying onto a v6-only backend server. I'm not very enthused by how much of the Internet is hosted behind Cloudflare, but they're certainly convenient for this exact use-case.
372.
by Dagger2 3y ago
Okay, but since that's RFC1918 you'll need to give me access to your immediate upstream network in order to send the packet to your router. How do you want to do that?
373.
by Dagger2 3y ago
We did map existing v4 addresses into v6. They're not two totally separate networks at all. But the limitations of v4 and of existing v4 devices limit the ways that can work. Reinventing stuff and calling it "4.1" won't
374.
by Dagger2 3y ago
No, the routers don't enforce that, and your ISP can route packets with a destination IP of 192.168.1.2, or anything else they like, to you just fine. Your router will happily "take" that destination IP. The only reason it wo
375.
by Dagger2 3y ago
Not necessarily. What enforces that? You can't rely on your attackers to kindly not send traffic to IPs you don't want them to.
376.
by Dagger2 3y ago
It's not actually secure; your router will route inbound packets to whatever IP is in the packet's destination header, and that can be a machine on your LAN. This remains true whether or not you're applying NAT to your outbou
377.
by Dagger2 3y ago
Those all work for me, on my v6-only desktop. (I don't use Discord, but their homepage loads at least.) None of those sites have v6 though, so you'll need some form of backwards compatibility running to reach them. Presumably you
378.
by Dagger2 3y ago
Wait, you wanted to extend the text representation of v4 addresses? That's not a thing that exists in the protocol. The addresses are in binary in the packet format and in all data structures, so any extension of the character set in
379.
by Dagger2 3y ago
...okay, I guess that was a bit of a wall of text, sorry about that. This was actually an interesting line of conversation for once, rather than picking apart yet another "just put 2^128 numbers into 2^32 holes, it'll be fine&quot
380.
by Dagger2 3y ago
I don't think the original rollout of the v4 internet really counts as a migration project, because there was no "NetBEUI internet" or "AppleTalk internet" to migrate from in the first place. IPX/SPX/NetBE
381.
by Dagger2 3y ago
And every other site. I don't even have a v4 address on my desktop. So why are we still dredging up this article when the problems have been solved?
382.
by Dagger2 3y ago
That doesn't mean the problems have gone away. It means we spend time and effort working around them, and many things just don't work at all. It remains true that v4 is too small and that it isn't working fine. That's be
383.
by Dagger2 3y ago
That would be a strong pathway forward indeed, if it were possible. Is it? Because your suggestion so far was something v6 already did, and it wasn't good enough for you. Computers are the worst pedants in existence, so if it's no
384.
by Dagger2 3y ago
You can actually move anywhere with Mobile IPv6. If you move outside your AS, it automatically tunnels your traffic back to your home network with IPsec. There's also a feature called "Correspondent Node" which allows you to
385.
by Dagger2 3y ago
That's what we have with v6. It's not entirely separate; it tends to be implemented together with v4 in the same stack of code and deployed on the same infrastructure. It's designed to allow you to migrate gradually. > My
386.
by Dagger2 3y ago
Based on "speak seamlessly to IPV4 and IPV6", I don't think I did. At the very least it would need to speak seamlessly to v4, which as you say is obviously not possible for any address length bigger than 32 bits. > The rea
387.
by Dagger2 3y ago
For whatever reason (it's probably a mix of NAT, the extra routing needed for CGNAT, and other things) there is a measurable difference in time to first byte on v6. Apple measured it as 40%: https://www.zdnet.com/articl
388.
by Dagger2 3y ago
AliExpress search is kinda wonky, it sometimes just breaks for a bit on specific search terms, or maybe it'll work but only for certain sort orders. The link is giving search results for me (although admittedly I'm not in the US,
389.
by Dagger2 3y ago
2.3 billion people are already using IPv6. It's not ubiquitous, but it seems to be here and working just fine.
390.
by Dagger2 3y ago
We already have v6 addresses that are semantically equivalent to v4 ones: ::ffff:a.b.c.d . You could put extra address bits into option headers instead of expanding the address fields, but... what do you do then? How do you make things wor

More ›