IPv6 is a failure. Why are we trying to use it?

[Luke has no name]

I read this a while back, and am glancing over it again:

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

It boggles my mind that IPv6 wasn't made to be back-compatible with IPv4. If it had been, or had some intermediate protocol been established with v4 AND v6 compatibility, we would all be on an IPv6 network right now.

Knowing how much trouble this spec would give the world, why wasn't it modified or scrapped? It started in '98. They've had 12 years to fix this issue, and they haven't.

Discuss.

[FuturePilot]

At some point you have to stop being backwards compatible. It just brings tons of extra baggage along inhibiting further advancements. There's a lot of restrictions with IPv4 that IPv6 doesn't have precisely because it isn't backwards compatible.

[toupeiro]

I read this a while back, and am glancing over it again:

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

It boggles my mind that IPv6 wasn't made to be back-compatible with IPv4. If it had been, or had some intermediate protocol been established with v4 AND v6 compatibility, we would all be on an IPv6 network right now.

Knowing how much trouble this spec would give the world, why wasn't it modified or scrapped? It started in '98. They've had 12 years to fix this issue, and they haven't.

Discuss.

you can run IPv4 and IPv6 protocols simultaneously on the same machine. Making a single protocol backwards compatibile, when the ultimate problem with IPv4 is running out of address space, is sort of pointless. Migrate to it over time and use both protocols until you've learned to support IPv6 properly.

[the yawner]

It's not a failure. It's just the transition plans, or lack thereof.

[toupeiro]

It's not a failure. It's just the transition plans, or lack thereof.

^ This.

[shazbut]

It's not a failure. It's just the transition plans, or lack thereof.

That, and the bandaid solution for IPv4, NAT, worked a little too well and became a bit of a security blanket for a lot of people.