This is not an inherent design flaw and is often brought up in IPv6 threads commonly referred to as the "just add more octets, bro" argument. This comment[0] sums it up well, but I'll leave it here for convenience:
> Fact is you'd run into exactly the same problems as with IPv6. Sure, network-enabled software might be easier to rewrite to support 40-bit IPv4+, but any hardware-accelerated products (routers, switches, network cards, etc.) would still need replacement (just as with IPv6), and you'd still need everyone to be assigned unique IPv4+ addresses in order to communicate with each other (just as with IPv6).
That's not at all what I'm suggesting, I'm saying "two internets" because there are two internets: IPv4 and IPv6. You need two internet stacks on every host to deal with this, hence two internets. If everything in the IPv6 protocol suite was literally identical to IPv4, but just with some extra bytes in every address, there would still be two internets, because they are not mutually compatible.
Saying "two internets" is not a judgement call on whether IPv6 changed too much or is too different. It's just the literal truth. There are two internets, because one can't communicate with the other.
$ ip -4 addr
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
$ ping -6 ipv4.google.com
PING ipv4.google.com(sof04s06-in-f14.1e100.net (64:ff9b::142.251.140.78)) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64:ff9b::8efb:8c4e: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=27.9 ms
> If everything in the IPv6 protocol suite was literally identical to IPv4, but just with some extra bytes in every address, because they are not mutually compatible.
This part is true though. v6 is backwards compatible in rather a lot of ways, but v4 isn't forwards compatible, and it's important to note that this comes entirely from the larger address size -- no amount of making v6 more identical to v4 than it already is would make v4 any more compatible with it, unless you undermined the entire point and made the addresses 32 bits.
(Yes, I understand there is no other way for a larger address space to exist that doesn’t have this problem. We are in violent agreement here. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t 2 internets. Let’s call a spade a spade.)
This situation was inevitable, but it's not like they just gave up and said "welp, guess they're separate then". We've developed basically every single method of communicating between v4 and v6 that are possible to develop. There's two address spaces, but they're linked into one Internet.
(Or really, with NAT in the picture, it's millions of overlapping address spaces, but we still consider that to be one Internet.)
How? People keep claiming this, but I've yet to see a coherent design (either back then or today). Do you think they broke backwards-compatibility _on purpose_? What's the motivation here?
>It _was_ possible to create an address space extension that was IPv4 backwards compatible, this option was just not chosen, and now we're still dealing with the dual stack mess.
This was never possible.
Yes there is: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291.html#section-2.5.5.2
It is not a design flaw of IPv6, it is a limitation of the laws of physics: how can you fit >32 bits of data (IPv6) into 32 bit data structures (IPv4: struct s_addr)?
Even if the IPng protocol could recognize IPv4 address and send out data, how can a host which only understands 32-bit addresses send back a reply back to the IPng host? If a packet with a >32b address comes in, how would a 32b-only hosts be able to handle it?
From Bernstein:
> In other words: The current IPv6 specifications don't allow public IPv6 addresses to send packets to public IPv4 addresses. They also don't allow public IPv4 addresses to send packets to public IPv6 addresses.
How would a non-updated IPv4 system know about the IPng protocol? If a non-updated router had a IPng packet arrive on an interface, how would it know how to handle the packet and routing?
All the folks criticizing IPv6 don't ever describe how this mythical system would work: how do you get 32-bit-only system to understand more-32-bits of addressing? Translation boxes? Congratulations, you've just invented 6rd BR or NAT64, making it no different that IPv6.
The primary purpose of IPng was a bigger address space, but how would that work without updating every single IPv4 device? You know, like had to be done for the eventual IPng, SIPP (aka IPv6).
By using nat46 on ISP's routers.
> By using nat46 on ISP's routers.
I do not understand.
In Ye Olde Times a system would call gethostbyname() and this send out a DNS packet asking for the IP address. Of course DNS record returned would be an A record, which is where your first problem is: A records are fixed at 32-bits (RFC 1035 § 3.4.1). So your first task is to create a new record type and update every DNS server and client to support the longer addresses.
Of course the longer address has to fit into the data structures of the OS you called gethostbyname() from, but gethostbyname() is set to use particular data structures. So now you have to update all the client DNS code to support the new, longer addresses.
Further, gethostbyname() had no way to specify an address type (like if you wanted the IPv4 address(es) or the IPng one(s)):
* https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=gethostbyname&manp...
The the returned data structures only allowed for one type of address type, so you either got IPv4 or IPng. So if you wanted to be able to specify the record/address type to query, a new API had to be created.
Luckily the next step, setting up a socket() and connect()ing is less of a burden, because that API already supported different protocols:
* https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=socket&manpath=Fre...
But if you have a host that support IPng, but its upstream router does not, how does it support a packet with a longer source address a shorter destination address get through?
Do you send IPv4 packets with embedded IPng packets with-in them to translation relays perhaps? How is this any different IPv6 transition mechanisms like Teredo?
If software has hardcoded ipv6 addresses, this is much harder to solve, but I don't think this is really an issue, because hardcoded ipv6 addresses appear very seldom.
But that means it has to intercept all DNS requests and doesn't work with anything it didn't intercept, which seems far from ideal.
But those don't have to be globally routable.
>it needs a big pile of ipv4 addresses to dynamically allocate whenever a new AAAA record comes through.
This wasn't really a problem until doh/dot became a thing.
But even nowadays doh and dot are provided by whom? By google and cloudflare who are tls-mitm'ing half of the internet anyway.
Moreover most ISPs intercept dns to display those "please enter your phone number to verify your identity" screens anyway.
>far from ideal.
No more imperfect than NAT. Idealism is what is killing ipv6.
All this cgnat46 setup is not in the name of end users, because they will always adapt somehow, as reels have a huge force of attraction.
It is to make sure that service providers can deploy ipv6-only _servers_ and not bother that 60 percent of their target audience will be unavailable.
The issue with the ipv6 internet is not the end users, they are paying, so the ISPs will always adapt to their needs, or the users themselves will buy new equipment in the worst case, it's the service providers who stop being profitable by going ipv6-only.
Worse is better.
Moreover, we really mostly need to make it work on http, that's enough to say "you can watch YouTube", but also deficient enough to stimulate ipv6 transition.
>given how many people here for example don't run their ISPs DNS..
Those people usually know how to deal with ipv6.
>Just seems massively complex and very resource intensive process.
No more complex than hanging in limbo for 30 years .
You mean like:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanism#464X...
If an isp already has full ipv6 deployment, accommodating for ipv4 is easy.
The biggest issue is, surprisingly, not ISPs, but service providers.
Maybe you don't. I imagine it would work like this (where XXXX::<IPv4> is the transition block mapping the current Internet v4 into IPv6):
- 32 bit host could only talk to other 32-bit hosts, and other XXXX::<IPv4 Adress> hosts. We have this now, just without the XXXX::<IPv4> part.
- Hosts with v6 addresses outside of XXXX::<IPv4> could not talk to IPv4 addresses without having a 6to4 proxy. We also have this now.
- Hosts with v4 addresses could switch to IPv6, KEEPING their current v4 address by setting their IPv6 addres to XXXX::<IPv4>. They can now talk to all the hosts they used to be able to, AND they can start talking to IPv6 hosts, without having to have two IP, dual stack config, etc.
So we end up with a significant benefit of allowing people with IPv4 addresses and IPv6 connectivity to do an IPv6-only setup.
In my case, I simply don't see us transitioning to IPv6. Our main service has an IPv4-only address and we receive 0 complaints about it. We've literally never had anyone say they couldn't connect to our services because of it. Our users are geographically located in the central US, and everybody has IPv4s. Maybe they have an IPv6 as well, but if we went v6-only I can basically guarantee that we'd have users screaming at us. We'd probably have lawsuits over it. But going v4-only, not a peep.
Oh, you mean like IPv4-mapped Address (::ffff:0:0/96) as defined in RFC 4291 § 2.2.5, or NAT64 (64:ff9b::/96) as per RFC 6050. See also 6to4 in RFC 3056 dating back to 2001.
Your idea is not new.
Every time IPv6 comes up some number of people talk about a protocol that 'just' added more bits IPv4 and calling it a day. But when going over the details of how what would work, exactly, you end up at the same place as IPv6 (and various 'transition mechanisms').
But there is no 'just' adding more addresses: you need to update (at least) end-hosts, update DNS, have relays/proxies if the middle of your network does not support IPng, have tunnelling to/from those special translation systems. It's basically the same thing as IPv6.
Certainly you can argue about keeping ARP versus going with NDP. Or not having SLAAC—but then you need infrastructure like DHCP (which is optional with IPv6).
Having two internets suggests that it's totally different, in the sense that there is no address space overlap between IPv4 and IPv6, an inherent design flaw of the IPv6 protocol. Just to provide the architypical links:
This was documented about 25 years ago by DJB:
https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
And has been repeatedly discussed on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10854570
As you mention, IPv6 has exsited for the majority of the commercial internet's history, now 25 years later, it's still not the default transport protocol.
It _was_ possible to create an address space extension that was IPv4 backwards compatible, this option was just not chosen, and now we're still dealing with the dual stack mess.