Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is there hope for IPv6?

internetgovernance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 399 posts

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#31

Post by geofft »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #27
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #15

I hope (but am skeptical) that folks look at the overall failure of ipv6 from a deployment perspective to understand the root causes of why it failed (some may think "failure" is too strong a word, but I remember v6 being "just around the corner" in 2000, yet in 2019 I'm still connecting to a GCP database with v4). Coming up with a solution that looks like a huge technological advancement, with no real respect for th…

What does a system that does take those incentives into account look like?

Loose coupling and no second system effect. IPv6 should have been extended address space and extended address space only, in a manner backwards-compatible with IPv4. You think ARP is broken? Great, implement a fixed version of ARP for both IPv4 and IPv6, meanwhile we'll spec IPv6 to use ARP. Don't design IPv6 to use your new thing called NDP that layers completely differently. You think everyone using NAT is wrong? Great, go convince them. Don't tell those people "I don't care what you think, I'm right, and you better agree with me in order to deploy the new thing." They're going to - entirely justifiably - not deploy your new thing.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#33

Post by geofft »

sverige wrote: post #6

> "Given that fundamental constraint, there are only three basic choices for network operators: ... 3. Run native IPv6 among compatible parts of their own network with some kind of tunneling or translation (i.e., converter technologies in economics) at the boundaries to make it compatible with IPv4 Among these viable alternatives, we show that dual stack will never get us across the finish line; it is not economical.…

Yeah, it's fascinating here that they've gone from "NAT is bad and we won't let you implement NAT, we need an internet on a single flat 128-bit address space" to "The internet will be IPv4 forever and you should implement IPv6 internally and run NAT, because we like it better than running IPv4 NAT which is what you've done for years and works great".

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#34

Post by lisper »

magila wrote: post #29

What we really need is a killer app that requires end-to-end connectivity. Users have little reason to care about IPv6 right now because the existing ecosystem of services has evolved around the constraints of NAT. As IPv6 deployment expands hopefully we will reach a point where some great new application becomes economically viable. My biggest fear is such an application not emerging quickly enough. Without an imper…

> What we really need is a killer app that requires end-to-end connectivity.

That seems unlikely to emerge. Anything you can do with end-to-end connectivity you can do with a server in the middle forwarding packets. Servers are cheap and reliable, so there's very little incentive to get rid of them.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#35

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

geofft wrote: post #31
Dylan16807 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a system that does take those incentives into account look like?

Loose coupling and no second system effect. IPv6 should have been extended address space and extended address space only, in a manner backwards-compatible with IPv4. You think ARP is broken? Great, implement a fixed version of ARP for both IPv4 and IPv6, meanwhile we'll spec IPv6 to use ARP. Don't design IPv6 to use your new thing called NDP that layers completely differently. You think everyone using NAT is wrong? G…

> Don't tell those people "I don't care what you think, I'm right, and you better agree with me in order to deploy the new thing." They're going to - entirely justifiably - not deploy your new thing.

Pay attention developers. This attitude is all too common in our industry.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#36

Post by kens »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #15

I hope (but am skeptical) that folks look at the overall failure of ipv6 from a deployment perspective to understand the root causes of why it failed (some may think "failure" is too strong a word, but I remember v6 being "just around the corner" in 2000, yet in 2019 I'm still connecting to a GCP database with v4). Coming up with a solution that looks like a huge technological advancement, with no real respect for th…

It seems like a lot of technology transitions go smoothly, while others painfully drag on for a decade (ipv6, Python3). Are there any common root causes for the semi-failures? Has anyone written about why some succeed and some don't?

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#37

Post by api »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #27
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #15

I hope (but am skeptical) that folks look at the overall failure of ipv6 from a deployment perspective to understand the root causes of why it failed (some may think "failure" is too strong a word, but I remember v6 being "just around the corner" in 2000, yet in 2019 I'm still connecting to a GCP database with v4). Coming up with a solution that looks like a huge technological advancement, with no real respect for th…

What does a system that does take those incentives into account look like?

In this case 64-bit IPv4 that gives every IPv4 a /32 and is backward compatible in some way e.g. looking like UDP to V4 hosts.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#38

Post by krylon »

I have been getting native IPv6 from my ISP for nearly six years now. It is not quite as cool as it could be, because I get assigned a new prefix every 24 hours, but still, IPv6 is there, and it "just works".

When I connect to machines on my home network in any way involving avahi/zeroconf, the machines talk to each other via IPv6 by default.

At work, it's a different story. I have drifted from a sysadmin/helpdesk role into a programmer position, so that is no longer my concern. When it was, however, there was little incentive to use IPv6 - everything worked and continues to work just fine with IPv4, and sometimes there were even some rather esoteric problems with Windows' "Network Location Awareness" when IPv6 was enabled.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#40

Post by CydeWeys »

rawoke083600 wrote: post #25

how about ipv5 and we just add an extra .255 ? Im sure our kids wilk figure out a better solution... ?

Assuming you're not joking, the nice thing about IPv4 is that it uses 32 bits, so you can store addresses in an unsigned int and use memory efficiently. Just adding one octet takes you up to 40 bits, which has alignment issues. You may as well go up to 64 bits (half of IPv6), which could be represented as 16 hex characters, e.g. 06A4.6E1B.12C9.95C8. That way you're kicking the can much farther down the road too.
Post reply on HN