Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design
by pocksuppet on Sunday April 19, 2026 @07:46PM
(#47828779)
They weren't all that wrong. NAT was an incompatible protocol upgrade - that's why it broke protocols that made pre-NAT assumptions, like FTP. DNS64 is an incompatible protocol upgrade that keeps most stuff still working. In DNS64, whenever your DNS resolver encounters an IPv4-only site, it translates it to an IPv6 address under a translator prefix, and returns that address to the client. The client connects to the translator server via that address, and the translator server opens an IPv4 connection to the website. This only breaks things to about the same small extent that NAT breaks old protocols like FTP.
Most things use DNS, so they keep working. Only things that rely on connecting to an exact IPv4 address break, which is very similar to the way that NAT broke things that relied on accepting connections to an exact IPv4 address.
Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design
by iknowstuff on Sunday April 19, 2026 @06:49PM
(#47828374)
iOS is benefitted from a heavy handed mandate so that it and all of its apps sing on IPv6 only networks. They just need to expose IPv4 internet as IPv6 addresses.
> Had V6 launched five years earlier V4 would probably be dead.
Not a chance. IPv6 ate way more memory than IPv4 and memory was expensive back in 1995. Even IPv4 proliferation was chewing up memory and that was why the IETF introduced Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) in 1993 which gave us subnet masking.
Memory cost was a problem in routing tables until after both the DotBomb and the TeleBomb.
The people involved in core Internet protocol design were used to the net being a largely walled garden of governments, corporations, universities, and a small number of BBSes and niche ISPs.
Major protocol upgrades had happened before, not just for the core protocol but all kinds of other then-core services.
It had been a while but not that long, I think less than 20 years, and last time it was pretty easy. They assumed they could design something better and phase it in and all the members of the Internet community would just do the right thing.
That’s probably what made them feel they could push a more radical upgrade.
Unfortunately they started this right as the massive tsunami of Internet commercialization hit. Since V6 was too new, everyone went with V4. Now all the sudden you had thousands of times more nodes, sites, and personnel, and all of them were steeped in IPv4 and rushing to ship on top of it. You also lost the small town atmosphere of the early net where admins were a club and could coordinate things.
Had V6 launched five years earlier V4 would probably be dead.
V6 usage will probably keep creeping up, but as it stands we will likely be dual stack forever. Once the installed user base and sunk cost is this high the design is fixed and can never be changed without a hard core heavy handed measure like a government mandate.