Comment by pclmulqdq
Comment by pclmulqdq 20 hours ago
IPv4 stuff is accessible over IPv6. It's just the other way around that is not the case.
Comment by pclmulqdq 20 hours ago
IPv4 stuff is accessible over IPv6. It's just the other way around that is not the case.
I'm pretty sure we're discussing about connecting to the Internet.
What I understood is being implied is that ipv6 has little utility if it cannot access ipv4, but is not the case the other way around.
Through a NAT64 NAT. Which is extra work, but not that bad.
Not really my point, was just pointing out there's scant incentive to transition from the incumbent.
I keep seeing people say this, but nobody ever takes the next step of proposing how this "missed opportunity" might have been fixed.
The reality is that there is no possible way IPv6 could have been designed that would both solve the IPv4 address exhaustion problem and natively interoperate with IPv4. When you send a packet to an IPv4 host, it needs to know where to send the response, and there simply aren't enough bits in the IPv4 header to fit more than 2^32 possible addresses.
You need something in the middle to translate between IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, and we already have that: it's called NAT64. It works the same way you would expect NAT to, and just like NAT on IPv4, there's no need to codify it as an explicit part of the IP protocol itself.
I think it was bad timing. We might have been able to migrate to IPv6 wholesale when the Internet was much smaller in the early 90s. One thing that comes to mind is the kumbaya moment when everyone got together to switch from BGP v3 to BGP v4 to support CIDR.
Not by default it’s not. An ipv6-only deployment cannot natively access an ipv4 network, there is no backwards comparability in the protocol.