IPv6 Excuse Bingo: * https://ipv6bingo.com
My work's VPN is horrifically misconfigured and breaks if I have IPv6 enabled, is that a good enough excuse?
AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
141–150 of 480 posts
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#142Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
That document has been going around for ages and is based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that one somehow can extend IPv4 in a way somehow, but remain compatible with IPv4-only clients. This is just not possible. Most of the other criticism is not relevant anymore, since we now have a lot of transition technologies that allow IPv6 clients to interoperate with IPv4 servers (this way around is possible since…
IPv6 is adding lots of complexity IPv4 never have to deal with. SLACC, interface-specific link-local address both look good in paper but cause lots real life headache. When it works, it works; when it don't, you have to unlearn and relearn everything network before you could possibly understand the problem, let alone fixing them.
You can use DHCPv6 instead of SLAAC. Plenty of people seem to find SLAAC preferable... and interface-specific link-local addresses are key to making it work so...
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#144We should probably consider whether the rent-seeking enabled by the scarcity of IPV4 addresses is one of the things holding back IPV6 adoption.
EU have enough influence to do to IPV6 what it did to USB in iPhones.
It's harder to prove consumer harm with something as abstract as IP addresses, and there's a bunch of other pieces that make this much less unlikely, such as the fact that USBs already become obsolete and need to be replaced, so you're just shifting the replacement cycle.
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#145We should probably consider whether the rent-seeking enabled by the scarcity of IPV4 addresses is one of the things holding back IPV6 adoption.
you mean the fact that amazon has around 4.5B reasons to not support ipv6?
interesting idea
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#146Some noob questions here. How does one buy a block of IPv4 as an individual? (If that's allowed) After you purchase it, how does it come into your possession? How do you utilize them?
You'll need to become a member of one of the regional Internet route registries, like RIPE or ARIN. Then you can buy, say a /24, and transfer it into your RIPE/ARIN account. Now you have your own IPv4 range. And you can start for example start to use it for your own servers. To do so you need to "announce" this new /24 to the internet, using a protocol known as BGP. You can do that yourself, using a router, assuming…
Before you can "announce" a prefix, you need an ISP willing to peer with you.
BGP is a very insecure protocol. Most of its "security" are enforced by money and contract.
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IPv6 is as backward compatible as is possible within this constraint. Yikes, couldn't disagree with that more. There are a ton of things that ipv6 designers could have done to make the transition much easier. This is a (now quite old) blog post that is my "go to" that explains a lot of the problems with ipv6: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html FWIW I couldn't find the link to that post until finding it on one of…
That document has been going around for ages and is based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that one somehow can extend IPv4 in a way somehow, but remain compatible with IPv4-only clients. This is just not possible. Most of the other criticism is not relevant anymore, since we now have a lot of transition technologies that allow IPv6 clients to interoperate with IPv4 servers (this way around is possible since…
> Overall we are now much further into the IPv6 migration than djb ever envisioned.
That post was written 20 years ago. I would hope that the migration would be more than "much further along", I'd have hoped it had been completed, like a decade ago.
> is based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that one somehow can extend IPv4 in a way somehow, but remain compatible with IPv4-only clients
I'm not a network engineer, but I've seen loads of commentary from knowledgeable sources that it would have been quite possible to have extended the ipv4 address space without requiring 2 completely separate network stacks.
I think the simple fact that ipv6 includes so many other parts beyond just extending the address space shows what a foolish endeavor it was in the first place. I'm not saying the other bits aren't good ideas, but the only immovable factor that has people wringing their hands about ipv4 is the address limitation. If they had just focused on that, we probably wouldn't be in a situation where we're still running 2 network stacks virtually everywhere, and will be for the foreseeable future. The famous XKCD "Standards" meme says it best: https://xkcd.com/927/
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vint Cerf has called the decision of it being 32 bits as silly and arbitrary, like having a car odometer with 40 digits. If he had pushed for more, he thought nobody would have taken him seriously. The idea of 32 becoming scarce was laughable. Also the complaint about ipv6 isn't a technical one, it's a usability one. Extending it to 48 bits would have been easy enough for people - like international calling. Those 16…
If one has to go through the pain of changing everything why not make sure one doesn't have to do it again any time soon? Also having 64-bit for the network address (and 64-bit for the device) does have certain benefits that make it easier to use than shorter addresses in practice for a single entity, since one can hierarchically model the network and do things like : : . So even in absence of DNS one doesn't quite h…
> why not make sure one doesn't have to do it again any time soon?
the pyramids in egypt took over a lifetime to build; a marvel of engineering, as theyve lasted thousands of years and noones had to build replacement pyramids. the problem, though, is noone in todays culture needs pyramids.
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vint Cerf has called the decision of it being 32 bits as silly and arbitrary, like having a car odometer with 40 digits. If he had pushed for more, he thought nobody would have taken him seriously. The idea of 32 becoming scarce was laughable. Also the complaint about ipv6 isn't a technical one, it's a usability one. Extending it to 48 bits would have been easy enough for people - like international calling. Those 16…
If one has to go through the pain of changing everything why not make sure one doesn't have to do it again any time soon? Also having 64-bit for the network address (and 64-bit for the device) does have certain benefits that make it easier to use than shorter addresses in practice for a single entity, since one can hierarchically model the network and do things like : : . So even in absence of DNS one doesn't quite h…
[deleted]
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP nor a recognised network expert but here is my suggestion: IPv10. The next IP version number that is unassigned, that is conveniently 4+6. Basically something that is not breaking compatibility with IPv4 and doesn’t require those dual network stacks nonsense.
How do you not break compatibility with IPv4 while also getting more bytes in the address?
Well again I’m not a network expert but perhaps we could look at the 240.0.0.0/4 reserved for future use block and add more address bytes in the payload or something. It’s not going to be elegant but IPv6 is kinda elegant and failed.