131–140 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As such it is not better enough than IPv4 That's the crux of it. Sometimes I think we'd be better off forgetting about IPv6, and starting afresh with an IPv7 - something that provides a meaningful incentive to upgrade.
IPv7 was used for the "TP/IX: The Next Internet" proposal from 1993: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1475 The next available version is IPv10
Which is fine, because it is IPv2 in human readable form after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will be no larger MTU, this battle is lost. 1500 will live forever. If it makes you feel better, think about it as if Ethernet packets are just oversized ATM cells. Solving PMTU problem would have required reifying the MTU to the IP layer. It could have been done like this: 1. Use a 16-bit field in the non-checksummed portion of the IP header. Initially this field is set to the MTU of the link that originates t…
It should be noted that pockets of jumbogram-in-the-wild exist. It's just normalised to clamp it to the point few people can exploit it. For example, the NBN in Australia uses a 2000+ layer-2 frame and nothing like 500 bytes is consumed to mark the upper carrier. They COULD have gone higher than 1500 and I would be surprised if there arent customers using 1300 or less because of the ADSL configuration they brought ov…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I know - but as the article mentions, it is not possible to "deprecate" IPv4 yet. I need both. And during this "migration phase", both IPv4+IPv6 must work alongside each other, which frankly speaking, I haven't yet managed to accomplish.
Well, tbh dual-stack is enabled in 70% of France's customers for example. If you start with a solid base (having a fixed IPv6 /56 delegation for example), or at least a dynamic allocation with IPv6-PD, then you'll see that it's way easier than IPv4 in the long end
It is only thanks to "happy eyeball" algorithms in the browser which prefer v4 when v6 is broken or non-performant that mitigate end user complaints to the point that people can just kind of turn it on in some state of broken and forget about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Use 72-bit addresses. 56 bits for the network address, 16 bits for the end-user networks. 16 bits is just way too small. The article clearly states that network operators just love to bridge together larger and larger networks due to the mobile IP problem. In the IPv4 world they can even have 24 bits (10.0.0.0/8) why should IPv6 have only 16 bits? It's definitely not enough.
8 bits for the home network feels cramped even now, my home network is at 56 devices. But 16 bits are fine for end-user networks. And once you go over 16 bits, you really need to start dealing with routing. > In the IPv4 world they can even have 24 bits (10.0.0.0/8) why should IPv6 have only 16 bits? It's definitely not enough. This is not a fair comparison. You won't have a 10.0.0.0/8 network in IPv4 that has 16 mil…
Disagree. you don't want to be routing unless you actually have to. A large flat network is more desirable a lot of the time (e.g thousands of devices in a DC) than a bunch of artificially carved up subnets.
The reason you don't see them very often is because people have had to use IPv4, which means ARP, which just doesn't scale. At some point in size, ARP chatter becomes the majority of the traffic on your network, which isn't great.
ND fixes this, and allows for ridiculously large networks (the way our good maker intended).
Cloud providers don't even support ipv6 that well let alone expecting the general public to switch over.
GitHub is the most annoying one. It's funny, given how many parts of IPv6 stack are developed here.
One thing I’ve realized lately is that scarcity is actually a benefit of ipv4, much in the way of the maximum amount of bitcoins theoretically increases their value. Ipv4 addresses are being ranked by their reputation. This is a good thing, at least right now, as it makes scammers/spammers/hackers/ddosers lives more expensive to acquire fresh addresses. This can only exist when a shortage exists.
> This is a good thing, at least right now, as it makes scammers/spammers/hackers/ddosers lives more expensive to acquire fresh addresses. This can only exist when a shortage exists. No it is not. More and more people share addresses so more people would be affected and it would just move the problem elsewhere.
IPv6's biggest problem remains not that it's badly designed (at least not nowadays, there were problems but they were solved ten years ago) but that millions of network engineers never bothered to look deeper into IPv6 than "I don't get it, this feels off". You can't make a backwards compatible "IPv4 with more bits" like people dream of. L2 routers and middleboxes would still need to be replaced, software would still…
The user/customer is always right. If the people who would use IPv6 don't like it and don't want it, if they think it's bad, then it's bad. When forest rangers observe hikers repeatedly deviating from the official trail at certain spots, the ranger understands this to mean the trail is wrong, and he re-designs it to accommodate the hikers. The forest ranger is able to do this because he understands what the trail is…
IPv6's biggest problem remains not that it's badly designed (at least not nowadays, there were problems but they were solved ten years ago) but that millions of network engineers never bothered to look deeper into IPv6 than "I don't get it, this feels off". You can't make a backwards compatible "IPv4 with more bits" like people dream of. L2 routers and middleboxes would still need to be replaced, software would still…
In my own experience in our household, IPv6 destroys privacy.
The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25568766 - Dec 2020 (131 comments)
The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20167686 - June 2019 (238 comments)
The world in which IPv6 was a good design - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14986324 - Aug 2017 (191 comments)