Comment by magicalhippo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by magicalhippo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Maybe it's more like IPv6 is the solution we got, rather than the solution we want. Not unlike Wayland vs X11. Both over-corrections to the problems they set out to fix.

Then again, my code doesn't get good until the third time I rewrite it...

As someone with a small home lab, IPv6 feels much more complex compared to IPv4. And it's still in significant flux despite decades old, while IPv4 hasn't changed significantly since I deployed my own m0n0wall box back before y2k.

It also requires more infra. DNS for everything is non-optional due to long addresses and dynamic prefixes. DHCPv6 is needed for all configuration settings to be set on clients. And there's still software that doesn't play well with IPv6.

It's just too much hassle for my home lab for now. Maybe in another decade.

Every time I used IPv6 I found it solved more problems than it created. E.g. with v6 you can make sure a VPN addresses will not collide with the user's actual address. No more nats or port forwadings, etc.

The main problem is that v4 has not yet been retired and that means many times you have to support both.

> No more nats

Hehehe... writing this from behind NPTv6 (a form of a prefix-to-prefix NAT). I have to use it because this is currently the only working method for a fail-over configuration with two ISPs.

Even worse - isps give different prefix lengths - I am curious how you are running npt -i spent WAY too long trying to get basic ipv6 failover working - what vendor / etc. Ipv4 failover is basically flawless and internal network doesn't renumber as routes flap

OpenWrt. It does require a custom script. See https://forum.openwrt.org/t/npt6-as-a-core-feature/146399

  over-corrections to the problems they set out to fix.

IPv4 space will—not a matter of if, it will eventually be exhausted. given that i don't know if IPv6 could reasonably be considered an 'over-correction' in the context of needing a larger address space, unless you strictly refer to complexity of the successor analogies (i.e. IPv6 and Wayland).

a comment elsewhere in this post makes some informed projections about when the transition will go from being gradual to necessarily fully (at least for IPv4) co-operational.

IPv6 has changed a lot over the years, mostly to simplify it. IPsec used to be mandatory, for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com