Dagger2

Every v4 address is a valid address in v6 too, so it seems it may be you that's lacking an understanding of v6.

Wasn't "dual-stack hosts talking over a v4 network" what you wanted?

v4 routers don't understand and can't route v6 packets, so you can't use the same route for both of them. v6 packets have to go to a router that understands v6, and v4 packets have to go to a router that understands v4.

I have no idea what "or a superset in the later stages (shared down to /32, v6-only in deeper subnets)." is trying to say.

It's perfectly possible to turn v6 on without changing anything at all about your networking. When e.g. Windows Vista came out, hundreds of millions of people did exactly that.

Why can't the service just set up NAT64 to accept your v6 connections on their v4 servers?

NAT is something you use when you're not managing.

The spec minimum is more like /56, so maybe you're forced to use slightly more than 48, but not all 128 bits.

No? It wouldn't be taking this long if they could do that.

The problem in this thread stems entirely from v4: they're being moved onto CGNAT (which is NATed v4), because the v4 address space is exhausted, and this is only a problem because the hospital relies completely on v4. None of these problems were created by "IPv6 people". The IPv6 people created the thing that solves these problems.

This hospital has had twenty years to gradually move things over to v6 which would have rendered the CGNAT a non-issue, but instead they've done zero work towards that and are completely unprepared to deal with the realities of v4 running out. Had they been forced to use v6, they would've be fine.

> when a network with IPv4 has an IP related problem, IPv6 folk will blame it on IPv4 even if it's entirely unrelated, even if the infrastructure isn't even at dual-stack phase.

Another opposite. What usually happens is that IPv6 gets blamed for any network problems, even on networks that don't use it.

I've seen people run software that failed to connect to a server's v4 address over a v4-only network due to broken v4, that have then blamed v6 for the problem. The error message from the software was somewhat misleading (it only prints the last connection failure instead of all of them), but even so.

It's usually the people not doing v6 that are delusional about it. Even on HN there's a steady stream of people complaining that v6 didn't do <thing that v6 did do> or that it's impossible to do <thing that's possible to do in v6>.

I do realize that you're likely to hit bugs or lacking support or something somewhere or another, but that's what the past twenty years of gradual transition were for. We've all put a ton of effort into buying you more time to figure this stuff out in. If you squandered all that time and then need to deal with everything after it becomes a big emergency, that's not v6's fault.

> get walmart to run their website on IPv6 before you push it to a hospital in southamerica who is having downtime.

If you wanted a nice orderly transition, you needed to start doing it earlier. Instead everybody is fighting to be the last person to transition, and you probably won't be able to beat Walmart on that fight.

It's one of the ways to do backwards compatibility. One of the most compatible ways, even.

I do! But then I ask those people to explain how to go about doing v6 in a way that isn't rubbish, and the only answers I get to that are a) impossible, b) no answer/refuse to answer, or c) they start reinventing v6 but with weird names for everything. Or some combination of the above ("just add two octets and have a flag day" is a common one, combining (c) with (a)).

I've more or less come to the conclusion that the people who think v6 is bad don't know what they're talking about. If none of these people can come up with a better approach than v6, that suggests that v6 really is more or less the best approach available.

> after almost 3 decades and so much the adoption at 50%

I think we all wish it had been faster, but the v4->v6 transition is the first time humanity has ever done a transition like this, on this scale, involving so many disparate networks controlled by so many people in so many countries. How do you know that 50% at 3 decades is slow? Maybe this is just the par time for this kind of thing.

Some of those locations probably did feel more exotic back in the early 90s than they do today... but they're also sensible places to hold international conferences. Where are you supposed to do them, if not there?

2002:47b1:11ab::/48 will go to your router if you announce it in BGP. It only goes to a 6to4 relay if there's no more-specific route.

(On home Internet you'll probably need your ISP to handle the announcements, like they already do for your v4 address.)

> The main issue with IPv6 seems to be IPv6 proponents that try to kill IPv4, no one will migrate if you force them to, if you propose, we will consider.

My experience is more the opposite. I keep seeing people say things like "I don't do v6 at home because I don't need it". These people are outright telling us that they're not going to start using v6 unless we make them need it.

Note that I didn't say "migrate to" v6. They're not even willing to do the first step of that ("start using v6"), even with no pressure to do the last step ("stop using v4").

I read an anecdote from Facebook that they had huge trouble getting their developers to stop writing v4-only code. Eventually they ended up removing v4 from their developer machines, who all of a sudden were able to write v6-capable code -- and it didn't take long for them to start asking when they could drop support for v4.

People will moan and moan and moan about v6 until you make them use it, at which point they discover that it was never as bad as they imagined it being.

Or perhaps we should be distributing the land more fairly.