Comment Re:IPv6 isn't the solution (Score 1) 327
There is no capability in IPv6 for a routing table. That goes away.
No it doesn't. And it cannot. There still is a routing table, it's just... bigger
In fact, one of the major selling points of IPv6 is that the subnetting and routing remain the same as in IPv4 (making things a bit easier to understand for administrators).
So if I'm sending a packet to you in v6 and we disagree on 37 bits there are 37 virtual routers (there may be more one virtual router implemented on a physical router) between you and I exactly.
That makes no sense to me. Do you have any kind of reference for the idea that "a bit in the address = a virtual router"?
IPv6 A wants to talk to IPv4 B:
1) A gets a dynamic IPv4 addresses assigned to it (unless (4) below).
Congratulations - your IPv6-only is now also an IPv4 host! That does not solve the original problem - getting an IPv6-only host to talk to an IPv4-only host. Aka "compatibility".
What is not the case though, what started the discussion with GP is that every v6 address is reachable by v4. As traffic moves to v6, a smaller percentage of v6 services will be offered on the v4 internet, and v4 will become a less and less functional subset of the internet. That's good, that's what we want.
I completely agree with you there (see a previous comment of mine). Getting stuff on the IPv6-only Internet might actually persuade a lot of host owners to upgrade.
Until we have an IPv6 Internet however, we need to make sure that people who move to IPv6 can still access the existing IPv4-only services. This is where the v6-to-v4 compatibility is necessary. And that compatibility was completely overlooked.
And no, "just add an IPv4 address to your host" doesn't cut it. If I'm going to have to run IPv4 to access my services, why bother with IPv6 at all?