
Moving to IPv6 (2002) - commandersaki
https://web.archive.org/web/20021017164820/http://cr.yp.to/proto/ipv6.html
======
OkGoDoIt
This post is from 2002. Was just a proposal that never took off? Is this
something that was implemented and in active use? Trying to figure out if this
is valuable information about how the Internet works or if it’s a
curiosity/novelty of the painful long road to IPv6.

~~~
zamadatix
Dual stack (run both and try to use v6 first) and NAT64 (run IPv6 only and NAT
to v4 at the edge) are the main methods today. The former is more common
inside homes/enterprises while the latter is more common in modern large
carrier networks such as mobile phones since the alternative would be to CGNAT
(double NAT) anyways and that creates more problems for clients than NAT64
(+more work to deploy).

Not to say CGNAT is unheard of, particularly if the network was large, old,
and needed to expand.

~~~
commandersaki
How do v4 clients (dual stacked) connected to the Internet with v4 talk to a
v6 server?

~~~
dahfizz
Some v6 networks are able to convert your v4 to a v6 address, but that's
pretty spotty.

If you are v4 only, and the server is v6 only, you really don't have much hope
of connecting.

~~~
commandersaki
And so we must rely on v4 addresses to cater for v4 only connected hosts. This
is the point the article is trying to make - for a transition to actually
happen there needs to be interoperability between v4 and v6, that is v4-only
clients need to talk to v6-only servers, and v6-only servers need to talk to
v4-only clients. That is a fundamental requirement for a transition plan which
provides a straight-forward path from v4 to v6.

~~~
dahfizz
v4 only hosts are rarer than you would think. ISPs have been dual stacking for
a while.

~~~
commandersaki
The Internet is mostly v4-only. What do you mean?

~~~
dahfizz
Do you have anything to back that up? I work in the Telco industry. The vast
majority of ISPs and carriers both provide dual stacking _at least_ , with
some carriers making as much of their network v6 only.

Really the only thing that is largely stuck on v4 is large (and poorly
maintained) corporate networks and cloud providers.

~~~
commandersaki
As I stated earlier v4 only means a network connected to the Internet via v4
without connectivity to v6.

This is the majority of networks on the Internet. Otherwise we’d see adoption
greater than 20% or whatever it is.

------
snuxoll
I’m still hoping one of these days we can just get on with everybody lighting
up IPv6.

Enterprises continue to drag their feet with misguided knowledge of NAT as a
security feature (it’s a glorified stateful firewall, enable the IPv6 one your
network equipment is practically bound to have). SAAS solutions frequently
fail to deploy IPv6 support still, even as major US mobile networks are
IPv6-only. Email seems to be stuck in IPv4 land because we’ve put far too much
into IP reputation, even though DKIM/SPF/DMARC and proper content-analyzing
spam filters are a better and less brute force solution.

Don’t get me started on residential ISPs. CableOne STILL doesn’t support IPv6,
and CenturyLink supposedly supports native IPv6 in my area (I ordered a static
v4 w/ native v6 online) but nobody can tell me how to configure it.

Let’s get moving already! I’m tired of the hacks.

~~~
btgeekboy
CenturyLink uses 6rd, at least on the fiber connection I used to have through
them. This blog helped me configure it on pfSense:
[https://kdemaria.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/how-to-
configure-p...](https://kdemaria.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/how-to-configure-
pfsense-2-2-2-for-ipv6-on-centurylink-gig-fiber/)

~~~
snuxoll
Yes, they have 6rd deployed - but in select markets they supposedly have
native dualstack as well (this was the option I chose on their static IP
portal when ordering mine). I have not been able to get either working
correctly with my Sophos XG box which has rather infuriated me.

------
lathiat
As an enthusiastic 15 year old I presented at linux.conf.au 2003 citing 10
years as a more "likely" target for IPv6 adoption.

Boy how I was wrong :-)

~~~
h1d
It would've been hard for you to say "it could take 20 years" and you would've
gotten laughed off.

------
wmf
Not this again. DJB's idea doesn't work but people don't realize that because
it's presented in such a vague way. [https://hackerfall.com/story/ipv6-non-
alternatives-djbs-arti...](https://hackerfall.com/story/ipv6-non-alternatives-
djbs-article-13-years-later)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10854570](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10854570)

~~~
commandersaki
Eh, I personally think the response in the foremost link is disingenuous. It
says v4 can’t talk to v4+ (AutoIPv6 address). This would be true for non dual
stacked systems; in whatever world you come up with. Obviously you need at
least one host to be dual stack for interoperability.

