mahboi

6 ms·

151.
by mahboi 4mo ago
Because you can't generally turn on v6 without thinking about it. Maybe consumers can, even then not always cause it messes random things up. Power users and offices maybe can't. Service operators really can't. If it were as
152.
by mahboi 4mo ago
Oh I mixed it up with 3. Yes you don't need #4. I could still have 8.8.8.8 routed to me in v-next, and then later do something with 8.8.8.8.1, so it's 1:1 but not onto. Instead v6 did completely new /64s with random addrs ins
153.
by mahboi 4mo ago
That's using v4 like the parent comment said. But anyway I don't want ipv6 to be dominant, I want them to scrap it and do something easier.
154.
by mahboi 4mo ago
No I know it's point 4, that was the point. You can do forwards compatibility that way.
155.
by mahboi 4mo ago
6to4 wasn't that. 8.8.8.8 didn't get routed to you in v6, instead it went to a relay server that then translated to v4 then sent it to you. And even if you actually owned 8.8.8.8, it didn't give you 8.8.8.8.1 etc, because it
156.
by mahboi 4mo ago
It'd be useless until everyone switches to the 5-byte thing and people can start putting something besides 0 into that last byte. But at least they could turn on v5 or whatever it's called without having to think about it. Right n
157.
by mahboi 4mo ago
Yes, we want ipv5 that just does 1, 2, 3 instead of ipv6 which does the most complicated variants of those and more. We didn't have requirements 4. change all the pre-existing addresses 5. make addresses randomly assigned 6. make route
158.
by mahboi 4mo ago
You've put yourself in a position where you can't access a lot of websites, including things like GitHub. That might be fine for you personally but isn't what most people do.
159.
by mahboi 4mo ago
> how do you think we got several billion smartphones connected to the Internet Only because of NAT. Those cellular CGNATs are v6 on the inside but v4 on the outside (well also v6 but customers need the v4 more).
160.
by mahboi 4mo ago
Shouldn't blocking v6 also be based on /32 if you want the attacker's cost to be the same?
161.
by mahboi 4mo ago
Yeah but they could've picked something that at least lets the 4 byte host talk to a 5 byte one. Like if I have 8.8.8.8 and they want to give me 8.8.8.8.0, cool. Or make it 8 bytes instead of 5, same thing.
162.
by 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.
163.
by mahboi 4mo ago
If ipv5 worked just like ipv4 except with a larger address space, it would be easier than moving to ipv6. I shouldn't have to change my address to switch for example.
164.
by mahboi 4mo ago
If they're going to make ipv5, might as well make it 8 bytes instead of 4