Comment Re:Wait a friggin minute... (Score 1) 180
They would have won with submarines and ballistic missiles.
Surface ships are obsolete since the invention of the ballistic missile.
And in the article, the (supposedly best) tale he told about the "surviving mouse" is that it "opened it's eyes". That's it. It seems as if that mouse cannot control the body and is only able to open it's eyes before it dies.
OK, I give up. You IPv6-people are unwilling to understand the simplest things.
I never said that "it's all good". What I did say is that IPv6 is incapable of solving that problems that we indeed have with IPv4. And the reason is incompatibility.
10 years ago, people like you already scared people by claiming that "IP addresses run out". Well yes, but people preferred to create workarounds for IPv4 than switch over to the incompatible IPv6. And the same will happen in the next 10 years.
I told you why that happened but you simply refuse to listen. So it will continue to happen.
Because that is where millions of man-hours are invested: In the configuration of the network.
typing "ip addr add fd00::101.102.103.104/128 dev eth0" on a Linux box will work.
Yes it would work on that box, but all the other boxes that need to access that computer will have to change their configuration from "101.102.103.104" to "fd00::101.102.103.104/128" so no, it will not work, which was the point.
So we could put v4 into a v6 prefix, and v6 hosts would be able to send packets to existing v4 hosts -- this would work just fine. But those v4 hosts could never respond.
If A has a long address and B has a short one: Correct. But IPv6 is lingering 20 years already so there would be no v4-only hosts anymore.
But you could upgrade B and it would work without changing the configuration of A!!!!!
Did you finally get it now? You could upgrade B without touching A and NOT CHANGE the address of either A nor B and it would all work just fine.
With IPv6 you would have to upgrade B, get a completely different address for B and therefore also change all computers that want to access B (either indirectly by DNS or directly by using fixed addresses).
Imagine a network with IPv4 hosts A, B, C, D. If you don't get a new IPv4 address you could add E with a long address and just upgrade those computers that need to access it. It would work all without any changed addresses for A, B, C and D.
Now compare that with the nightmare of getting completely new addresses for A through D, reconfiguring firewalls, DNS entries, scripts, etc. etc. for all combinations. It's not practicable. Any IPv4 workaround, no matter how ugly, is preferrable to a dual-stack scenario.
Changing ANY field in the IP packet format would require a firmware/software update/recompilation of all network stacks running out there, down to the user programs that just want to open a socket to connect to some server.
Or do you think the addrlen argument passed to connect(3) will just grow by magic in all programs, just because they know it's not the ugly IPv6, but the old, trusty IPv4, just extended with an extra byte?
Of course not.
But it would allow to keep using the configuration (DNS configruration for webservers and email-servers, etc.)
Sometimes I think people just refuse to understand the point.
But that's fine by me. Keep celebrating your "IPv6 world day" for the next 30 years.
They already did that:
baldur@ballerup1:~$ ping6
So you can set up a computer that has "::101.102.103.104" and no other address as IPv6 address?
I don't think that's possible. This looks just like a wrapper to IPv4 to me.
1: Yes, but once is one time too often.
How did you ever get the time or patience to configure IPv4?
That's a fair question and I give you a fair answer: By adding one piece at a time. Not by throwing out everything and starting from scratch.
2: If IPv6 were backwards-compatible, we wouldn't. We could go from IPv4 to IPv6 just like going from CDs to DVDs to BluRay. But it isn't and therefore we won't ever replace that structure.
Like I said elsewhere, they are parallel tracks, not assets. If your new Windows 10 computer doesn't run your old Windows XP software, backwards compatibility is a problem. If you need to connect to someone using Skype or FaceTime, whether you do it via IPv4 or IPv6 is irrelevant, since it's transparent to you. However, it is very relevant to network engineers who have to live with problems around NAT, security, inadequate #addresses and so on.
Yeah and so? Fact is that IPv4 is neccessary to use the Internet in a meaningful way. Fact is also that IPv6 does not give you any added value. All the added value is only available after that "everybody switches" and we can phase out IPv4, which will never happen. Nobody said that IPv4 was perfect or even good. But it works and IPv6 does not. (When I can only reach 10% of servers with IPv6 then the Internet does not work, period.)
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
