Comment by redox99

5 days ago

Hardware would catch up. And IPv4 would never go away. If you connect to 1.1.1.1 it would still be good ole IPv4. You would only have in addition the option to connect to 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 if the entire chain supports it. And if not, it could still be worked around through software with proxies and NAT.

So... just a less ambitious IPv6 that would still require dual-stack networking setups? The current adoption woes would've happened regardless, unless someone comes up with a genius idea that doesn't require any configuration/code changes.

  • I disagree. The current adoption woes are exactly because IPv6 is so different from IPv4. Everyone who tries it out learns the hard way that most of what they know from IPv4 doesn't apply. A less ambitious IPv4 is exactly what we need in order to make any progress

    • It’s not _that_ different. Larger address space, more emphasis on multicast for some basic functions. If you understand those functions in IPv4, learning IPv6 is very straightforward. There’s some footguns once you get to enterprise scale deployments but that’s just as true of IPv4.

      5 replies →

    • > The current adoption woes are exactly because IPv6 is so different from IPv4. Everyone who tries it out learns the hard way that most of what they know from IPv4 doesn't apply.

      In my experience the differences are just an excuse, and however similar you made the protocol to IPv4 the people who wanted an excuse would still manage to find one. Deploying IPv6 is really not hard, you just have to actually try.

    • Part of the ipv6 ambition was fixing all the suboptimally allocated ipv4 routes. They considered your idea and decided against it for that reason. But had they done it, we would've already been on v6 for years and had plenty of time to build some cleaner routes too.

      I think they also wanted to kill NAT and DHCP everywhere, so there's SLAAC by default. But turns out NAT is rather user-friendly in many cases! They even had to bolt on that v6 privacy extension.

      3 replies →

    • > I disagree. The current adoption woes are exactly because IPv6 is so different from IPv4.

      How is IPv6 "so different" than IPv4 when looking at Layer 3 and above?

      (Certainly ARP vs ND is different.)

      3 replies →

    • But that is a bug in history. IPv6 was standardized BEFORE NAT.

      “most what they know from IPv6” is just NAT.

      > A less ambitious IPv4 is exactly what we need in order to make any progress

      but we’re already making very good progress with IPv6? Global traffic to Google is >50% IPv6 already.

      10 replies →

  • Sort of. I think people would understand

    201.20.188.24.6

    And most of what they know about how it works clicks in their mind. It just has an extra octet.

    I also think hardware would have been upgraded faster.

    • It would've been even easier and lasted longer to use two bytes of hex at the start. That would've expanded the Internet to 65536x its current space.

      Something like aaff:a.b.c.d

      Leaving off the prefix: could just mean strictly IPv4.

      2 replies →

    • Think of it like phone numbers. For decades people have accepted gradual phone number prefix additions. I remember in rural Ireland my parents got an extra digit in the late 70s, two more in the 90s, and it was conceptually easy. It didn't change how phones work, turn your phone into a party line or introduce letters or special characters into the rotary dial, or allow you to skip consecutive similar digits.

      For people who deal with ip addresses, the switch from ipv4 to ipv6 means moving from 4 digits (1.2.3.4) to this:

         2001:0db8:0000:0000:0008:0800:200c:417a
         2001:db8:0:0:8:800:200c:417a
         2001:db8::8:800:200c:417a
      

      Yes, the ipv6 examples are all the same address. This is horrible. Worse than MAC addresses because it doesn't even follow a standard length and has fancy (read: complex) rules for shortening.

      Plus switching completely to ipv6 overnight means throwing away all your current knowledge of how to secure your home network. For lazy people, ipv4 NAT "accidentally" provides firewall-like features because none of your home ipv4 addresses are public. People are immediately afraid of ipv6 in the home and now they need to know about firewalls. With ipv4, firewalls were simple enough. "My network starts with 192.168, the Internet doesn't". You need to learn unlearn NAT and port forwarding and realise that with already routable ipv6 addresses you just need a firewall with default deny, and then add rules that "unlock" traffic on specific ports to specific addresses. Of course more complexity gets in the way... devices use "Privacy Extensions" and change their addresses, so making firewall rules work long-term, you should use the device's MAC Address. Christ on a bike.

      I totally see why people open this bag of crazy shit and say to themselves "maybe next time I buy a new router I'll do this, but right now I have a home with 4 phones, 3 TVs, 2 consoles, security cameras, and some god damn kitchen appliances that want to talk to home connect or something". Personally, I try to avoid fucking with the network as much as possible to avoid the wrath of my wife (her voice "Why are you breaking shit for ideological reasons? What was broken? What new amazing thing can I do after this?").

      6 replies →

  • The main thing is keeping current addresses, not having both an ipv4 and ipv6 address.

    Just like for an apartment you append something like 5B. And for a house you don't need that.