|
|
|
|
|
by anderstrier
1629 days ago
|
|
> In other words: The current IPv6 specifications don't allow public IPv6 addresses to send packets to public IPv4 addresses. They also don't allow public IPv4 addresses to send packets to public IPv6 addresses. Public IPv6 addresses can only exchange packets with each other. The specifications could have defined a functionally equivalent public IPv6 address for each public IPv4 address, embedding the IPv4 address space into the IPv6 address space; but they didn't. Why didn't they? What are the arguments against this solution? You would have to upgrade the software and OS of systems using IPv4-only to understand the IPv6 IP header. (Which is much simpler than upgrading to support IPv6 AND assigning IPv6 addresses) I guess the bigger problem is that all routers in the path between an IPv6-only host and an IPv4-only host would have to support IPv6 to parse the destination IPv4/IPv6 address and make the proper routing decision. This would make "IPv6 to IPv4 and vice-versa" traffic only work for some, depending on which ISPs has upgraded their equipment to support IPv6, and which IPv4-only hosts has upgraded their software+OS to support IPv6. This could result in IPv6 getting a very bad reputation, further delaying adoption. Anything I am missing? |
|
> Why didn't they? What are the arguments against this solution?
They did. See "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (SIIT)"
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2765 (2000)* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7915 (update in 2016)