logoalt Hacker News

lxgryesterday at 6:54 PM3 repliesview on HN

Which IPv6 “gratuitious” features (i.e. anything other than the decision to make a breaking change to address formats and accordingly require adapters) would you argue made adoption more difficult?

IPv6 gets a lot of hate for all the bells and whistles, but on closer examination, the only one that really matters is always “it’s a second network and needs me to touch all my hosts and networking stack”.

Don’t like SLAAC? Don’t use it! Want to keep using DHCP instead? Use DHCPv6! Love manual address configuration? Go right ahead! It even makes the addresses much shorter. None of that stuff is essential to IPv6.

In fact, in my view TFA makes a very poor case for a counterfactual IPv4+ world. The only thing it really simplifies is address space assignment.


Replies

aboardRat4today at 1:53 AM

/>Don’t like SLAAC? Don’t use it!

It doesn't work like this. SLAAC is a standard compliant way of distributing addresses, so you MUST support it unless you're running a very specific isolated setup.

Most people using Android will come to your home and ask "do you have WiFi here?"

show 1 reply
avidiaxyesterday at 7:42 PM

It's not that they loaded it up with features, it's that elegance was prized over practicality.

Simplifying address space assignment is a huge deal. IPv4+ allows the leaves of the network to adopt IPv4+ when it makes sense for them. They don't lose any investment in IPv4 address space, they don't have to upgrade to all IPv6 supporting hardware, there's no parallel configuration. You just support IPv4 on the terminals that want or need it, and on the network hardware when you upgrade. It's basically better NAT that eventually disappears and just becomes "routing".

show 1 reply
iso1631yesterday at 7:29 PM

Having both a real address, a link-local address, and a unique local address, and the requirement to use the right one in each circumstance

The removal of arp and removal of broadcast, the enforcement of multicast

The almost-required removal of NAT and the quasi-relgious dislike from many network people. Instead of simply src-natting your traffic behind ISP1 or ISP2, you are supposed to have multiple public IPs and somehow make your end devices choose the best routing rather than your router.

All of these were choices made in addition to simply expanding the address scope.

show 1 reply