11–20 of 73 posts
Why couldn't we have just added another byte to IPv4 addresses and called it a day? Hell add two bytes.
Because every node that is supposed to be able to route these packages need to be patched to understand the new package format. So its is equally difficult.
The world had -just- gotten its parents and aunts and uncles and maybe some grandparents trained up on what an IP address is and looks like, and THEN the IETF approved this idiotic standard that said “forget all that, now it’s a bunch of hexadecimal digits with these confusing rules about colons to be ‘user-friendly.’ Also, be sure not to confuse your IPv6 address with the MAC address that’s printed on your devices.”…
The syntax of the address? MAC addresses seem to thrive, both in Ethernet and Bluetooth. Sure, it's only 48 bits, but it's a bunch of hexadecimal digits with colons. IPv6 failed because (1) it demanded too much of the networking hardware, (2) was a stupidly complex beast compared to IPv4 and (3) had the catch-22 of requiring both producers and consumers to upgrade at the same time to even make it usable, let alone wi…
Grandparent is engaging in the classic tech industry tradition of talking confidently about something they have very little knowledge about. Surely old people learning hex isn't what's stopping IPv6 adoption but why not, they explained IP addresses it to their Nana once at Christmas (you never visit!) and she nodded politely and so they're an expert on networking.
The world had -just- gotten its parents and aunts and uncles and maybe some grandparents trained up on what an IP address is and looks like, and THEN the IETF approved this idiotic standard that said “forget all that, now it’s a bunch of hexadecimal digits with these confusing rules about colons to be ‘user-friendly.’ Also, be sure not to confuse your IPv6 address with the MAC address that’s printed on your devices.”…
The syntax of the address? MAC addresses seem to thrive, both in Ethernet and Bluetooth. Sure, it's only 48 bits, but it's a bunch of hexadecimal digits with colons. IPv6 failed because (1) it demanded too much of the networking hardware, (2) was a stupidly complex beast compared to IPv4 and (3) had the catch-22 of requiring both producers and consumers to upgrade at the same time to even make it usable, let alone wi…
I for one to still to this day and age don't really understand IPv6 addresses, and admittedly haven't tried much. I typically disable IPv6 at the kernel because it's been nothing but trouble.
Why couldn't we have just added another byte to IPv4 addresses and called it a day? Hell add two bytes.
Because every node that is supposed to be able to route these packages need to be patched to understand the new package format. So its is equally difficult.
Not saying all those changes were bad, but at least for me it also makes thinking about IPv6 when using it much more foreign than if it had been just a larger address space.
> IPv6 chose to have addresses on the interface connecting to the network instead of having addresses on the node. In contrast to IPv4, IPv6 supports multiple addresses on an interface, where each of the address has different properties. IP Addresses were always interface-bound. And you always could have multiple addresse on the same interface. Your IPv4 loopback device has 2^24 addresses bound to it right in this mo…
Having several IPv4 addresses per physical interface is a bit of an extension. It is called IP aliasing in Linux and it wasn't always there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because every node that is supposed to be able to route these packages need to be patched to understand the new package format. So its is equally difficult.
Well yeah it would obviously constitute a new protocol and hardware/software would need to be upgraded, but beyond that everything that worked in IPv4 would continue to work in this theoretical protocol.
Nobody wanted to touch middleboxes, routers, etc. half of the internet is running on software that is 10 years old, trunk networking is several times older. Very reliable and known of all its quirks, so it's unlikely to be replaced. New ISP's are the most likely to deploy ipv6 natively, and such ISP have to compete with other new and old ISP. Consumers don't care as long as things work most of the times, which ipv4 is _good enough_.
I would love to have a way to route my entire host to the internet, as it would make certain things easier, but I'm in the minority. Government policy could help ease the pain by requiring public institutions to implement it, but that's also a political problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yeah it would obviously constitute a new protocol and hardware/software would need to be upgraded, but beyond that everything that worked in IPv4 would continue to work in this theoretical protocol.
You could add 12 bytes to the address, such an protocol already exists and is in widespread use.
Why couldn't we have just added another byte to IPv4 addresses and called it a day? Hell add two bytes.