undefined | Better HN

0 pointscdchn2y ago0 comments

How do you not break compatibility with IPv4 while also getting more bytes in the address?

0 comments

hkt2y ago

Maybe just don't? Let it be IPv4 with more bits, the software is already there so dual stacking isn't so bad, adoption might actually be quick if people didn't have to learn much to implement it.

superluserdo2y ago

>Let it be IPv4 with more bits

Then it's not IPv4 and is not compatible with IPv4.

hkt2y ago

It'd be compatible (or trivially close) to most of the software that is required to make it work. Which is to say the cost of implementation would be low - not the case with ipv6.

sambazi2y ago

country codes </s>

speedgoose2y ago

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.

growse2y ago

This is the most hilarious "I don't understand anything about the problem, therefore I don't understand how it's hard" comment I've seen this week.

> perhaps we could look at the 240.0.0.0/4 reserved for future use block

What's the current rate of v4 address space consumption? How long will this block last?

> and add more address bytes in the payload or something.

This is, by definition, not backward compatible.

speedgoose2y ago

I may not have been clear enough in my suggestion. The idea would be to use this unused block as a special block. Not to fill it up with normal IPv4 allocations.

See my suggestion as some kind of NAT-PT at scale. With a better marketing name and user experience.

The problem is indeed hard because no one manage to find a solution at scale since 3 decades.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

hkt2y ago

Maybe just don't? Let it be IPv4 with more bits, the software is already there so dual stacking isn't so bad, adoption might actually be quick if people didn't have to learn much to implement it.

superluserdo2y ago

>Let it be IPv4 with more bits

Then it's not IPv4 and is not compatible with IPv4.

hkt2y ago

It'd be compatible (or trivially close) to most of the software that is required to make it work. Which is to say the cost of implementation would be low - not the case with ipv6.

sambazi2y ago

country codes </s>

speedgoose2y ago

growse2y ago

This is the most hilarious "I don't understand anything about the problem, therefore I don't understand how it's hard" comment I've seen this week.

> perhaps we could look at the 240.0.0.0/4 reserved for future use block

What's the current rate of v4 address space consumption? How long will this block last?

> and add more address bytes in the payload or something.

This is, by definition, not backward compatible.

speedgoose2y ago

I may not have been clear enough in my suggestion. The idea would be to use this unused block as a special block. Not to fill it up with normal IPv4 allocations.

See my suggestion as some kind of NAT-PT at scale. With a better marketing name and user experience.

The problem is indeed hard because no one manage to find a solution at scale since 3 decades.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse