Comment by paperplatter

Comment by paperplatter 14 hours ago

4 replies

That's my proposal, ipv6 with extra steps. As in, incremental steps instead of one impossibly big change. tl;dr keep the pre-existing v4 /32 blocks day 1, and the rest follows.

Edit: I said "my" proposal, but pretty sure the same idea has been brought up many times.

ianburrell 12 hours ago

Getting rid of IPv4 address allocation is one of the huge advantages of IPv6. IPv4 is chopped up into little pieces and the routing table is mess from it. Starting from scratch, IPv6 can make that better.

IPv6 also realized that most people don't need their own address space. It is valuable in IPv4 to own an allocation, but IPv6 is so huge it doesn't matter.

For setup, IPv6 does it automatically for customers. Peering requires entering IPv6 addresses, but that is a one time thing.

  • nottorp 4 hours ago

    > Getting rid of IPv4 address allocation is one of the huge advantages of IPv6. IPv4 is chopped up into little pieces and the routing table is mess from it.

    Basically IPv6 only solves problems if you're paid full time to do network administration.

    If you just run a small network among other things, it creates problems. Because you can't hold the new structure in your head if it's not your main job.

    > Starting from scratch, IPv6 can make that better.

    Yeah right. Want that "things you should never do" Joel link?

    He was talking about Netscape, but I think IPv6 is a much better example.

  • paperplatter 12 hours ago

    Yeah, the route fragmentation a disadvantage of what I've had in mind. My focus is just on getting things to speak v6 to fix the scarcity problem first. Maybe at some point the owners could've swapped addresses back to defrag things.

[removed] 12 hours ago
[deleted]