Re:AWS and their billions in IPv4 addresses
by lucb1e on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @01:46PM
(#24840296)
In what way is it backwards compatible? It's not as if all allocations are kept and people just add 96 bits to their existing addresses. They are completely disjoint address spaces and protocols, as compatible as Tor is with the general internet: to communicate between the two, you need a proxy.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:AWS and their billions in IPv4 addresses
by sushicalculus on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @02:14PM
(#24840606)
I was wrong. I must have rememberd an early draft or the translation layer
Re:AWS and their billions in IPv4 addresses
by mulmen on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @02:12PM
(#24840586)
Tor operates over the Internet.
Did you mean to compare Tor to the World Wide Web?
Re:AWS and their billions in IPv4 addresses
by eznzt on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @06:45PM
(#24843067)
Tor is sort of a virtual network. You need a gateway between the virtual network and the Internet to access the Internet.
Re:AWS and their billions in IPv4 addresses
by mulmen on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @10:01PM
(#24844170)
Tor overlays the Internet. It can’t operate without that underlying network. That is not how IPv6 works relative to IPv4.
Re:AWS and their billions in IPv4 addresses
by lucb1e on Wednesday October 21, 2020 @04:51PM
(#24852046)
Yeah, that is indeed a flaw in the comparison.
Re:AWS and their billions in IPv4 addresses
by Dylan16807 on Wednesday October 21, 2020 @05:48AM
(#24846207)
So I'm not saying it's backwards compatible, exactly, but what would you call 64:ff9b::?
Re:AWS and their billions in IPv4 addresses
by mulmen on Thursday October 22, 2020 @01:03AM
(#24855055)
A reserved gateway address space?
Re:AWS and their billions in IPv4 addresses
by Dylan16807 on Thursday October 22, 2020 @08:55PM
(#24865040)
By embedding the IPv4 address space inside the IPv6 address space.
They are different protocols but they are not disjoint address spaces.
You add 96 bits to the address and boom it's converted.