The world in which IPv6 was a good design

Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by pknomad on Monday August 14, 2023 @11:53AM (#37122520)

I work for a federal space where IPv6 native is a mandate. As someone who's working on k8s, we often have to build and patch everything ourselves to support that mandate. Want to pull a helm chart from a github repo? Gotta either dual stack the node or run a reverse proxy to make that happen.

I'd love to be at a point where everyone just dual stacked everything so that one day we can flip off the IPv4 switch.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by Dagger2 on Monday August 14, 2023 @12:55PM (#37123353)

Try NAT64. It'll let v6-only clients reach v4-only websites.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by pknomad on Tuesday August 15, 2023 @07:09AM (#37132465)

Interesting. I'll take a look! Thanks!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by ianburrell on Monday August 14, 2023 @01:10PM (#37123590)

I think major failure of Kubernetes was not being IPv6-only from the beginning. Its model of every pod having own address works much better with IPv6 where addresses are cheap. With IPv4, it needs complicated overlay networks. The cluster boundary would also make a good place for NAT64 proxy.

Kubernetes didn't get IPv6 support until later, and it sounds like it isn't reliable yet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by mike_d on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:01PM (#37127891)

> I think major failure of Kubernetes was

Heh. Kubernetes as a whole was a failed project at Google that got open sourced.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by pknomad on Tuesday August 15, 2023 @07:08AM (#37132455)

I was under the impression that Google simply latched onto the project? Doesn't Google still use borg to this day?

[ Parent | on HN ]