51–60 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could add 12 bytes to the address, such an protocol already exists and is in widespread use.
It's the change that is problematic, 1 bytes, 12 bytes, ipv6, they all have the same problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just don't think IPv6 addresses are human readable compared to IPv4 addresses. I know DNS makes that a non issue for the majority of users but I still think it's an important quality for people in charge of maintaining networks and stuff.
> I just don't think IPv6 addresses are human readable compared to IPv4 addresses Then you just didn't read enough into IPv6 documentation yet. IPv6 addresses can be short if you want because of the `::` operator. Example: Instead of IPv4 where you'd have the addresses `10.0.0.2` - `10.0.0.100` for clients on your LAN + a single global IPv4 address, you just have `2001:db8::2` - `2001:db8::100` (where `2001:db8` is t…
ULA makes it somewhat better, but not that much.
In my view, IPv6 requires DNS for all hosts to be manageable. We have mDNS which, when it works, makes that easier for internal hosts, but for external IPs using DynDNS is required.
> 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…
PING 127.12.34.56 (127.12.34.56): 56 data bytes Request timeout for icmp_seq 0 There's also ip unnumbered where an interface can reuse ip from one interface (typically from loopback) on other interfaces.
127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host
loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher-level protocol to an
address anywhere within this block loops back inside the host. This
is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback.
An ICMP Ping is a datagram in the sense of the second sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PING 127.12.34.56 (127.12.34.56): 56 data bytes Request timeout for icmp_seq 0 There's also ip unnumbered where an interface can reuse ip from one interface (typically from loopback) on other interfaces.
You changed your interface to not implement RFC 5735: 127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher-level protocol to an address anywhere within this block loops back inside the host. This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback. -- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5735#section-3 An ICMP Ping is a datagram in the sense of…
Also:
This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback.
I don't see a world where these compromises didn't exists and ipv6 would have been successful in rapidly replacing ipv4. The article seems to miss the forest for the trees, trying to think technical problems that prevented deployment, when it was actually political ones. Nobody wanted to touch middleboxes, routers, etc. half of the internet is running on software that is 10 years old, trunk networking is several time…
I'd say it's more human nature.
We can see the problem looming in the horizon, we think we have some solution but implementing it will be painful now. However, the current solution isn't very painful yet, so it's better near-term to procrastinate. And so we postpone the change.
If IPv4 had some flaws that seriously hurt back in the mid-90s, we'd surely be over on IPv6 or something else by now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think it’s obvious at all, not even in retrospect. People have historically been wildly underestimating how computing usage would evolve (“640KB of memory ought to be enough for anybody”), interfaces connected to the internet have indeed multiplied exponentially and it’s showing no sign of slowing down.
https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion.htm It's obvious.
9,000,000 AD
I kinda agree with the arcticle. Here is my ideal IPv6: http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6 It basically means, you grab IPv4 implementation, extend address space to 64bit, call it IPv6, vioala. Problem solved. IPv4 was battle proven for years. It mistakes were sorted out (CIDR addressing, ARP poisoning, DHCP/BOOTP, etc). It was widely understood. NAT is okey, CGNAT is not. The only problem was the address space. And the…
It would have been adopted a lot faster if they had just done this. Just extend the address space, make a small part of it the previous ipv4 address space so translation between the two was trivial and it would have been easy to run them both side by side and transition appropriately with some translation services where IPv6 interfaced with IPv4.
I kinda agree with the arcticle. Here is my ideal IPv6: http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?ipv6 It basically means, you grab IPv4 implementation, extend address space to 64bit, call it IPv6, vioala. Problem solved. IPv4 was battle proven for years. It mistakes were sorted out (CIDR addressing, ARP poisoning, DHCP/BOOTP, etc). It was widely understood. NAT is okey, CGNAT is not. The only problem was the address space. And the…
123.123.123.123/48 or whatever would be completely useless and dropped by an incompatible router and a server wouldn’t know what the hell to send its packets back to if it even got a response from something with that.