> Future proofing it by jumping straight to 128 bits instead of 64. 64 would have been fine. Even with a load factor of 1:1000 by assigning semantics to ranges of IP addresses, 64 bit addressing is still enough addresses for 10 million devices per person.

128 bit is like the least of adoption issues and basically meaningless difference vs 64.

But it shows weird priorities when they decided 128 then immediately wasted half of it on host part just to achieve "globally unique" host part that isn't really all that useful characteristic of the protocol.

▲

sedatk 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> to achieve "globally unique" host part that isn't really all that useful characteristic of the protocol.

That's the essential part of self-configured addresses in IPv6 that does away with DHCP in most cases. DHCP is a stateful system that has to track every device's addresses individually. You don't need that with IPv6 thanks to this.

▲

rmwaite 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IP addresses were always meant to be globally reachable. Of course, NAT has corrupted this - which is why NAT is a scourge.

▲

hdgvhicv 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

And so are firewalls?

	▲	convolvatron 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		firewalls are a choice that the enduser makes. non-routed prefixes are a limitation imposed by the ISP the the user can't address.

▲

api 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I kinda think we could fix/save IPv6 by taking away almost everything but the 128-bit address extension.

▲

vasco 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The truth is nothing needed fixing, or we wouldn't have been in this position 30 years later

	▲	patmorgan23 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Disagree. APINIC got screwed on the IP allocation side, they're the RIR with the largest population but they have a tiny amount of IPs compared to ARIN. India and China have billions of people and not enough v4 space for them. If we go back and reallocate legacy blocks maybe you could make the system work but that would be a big fight with the legacy networks. v6 restores the end-to-end principle and reduces network complexity once you go v6 only. Not more NAT traversal problems, no need to deal with STUN/TURN, small networks get even simpler with no need for a statefull DHCP server. Sticking with only v4 space also artificially increases the cost of starting new networks and services because you have to buy space from the entrench IP save owners (unless we change the rules are start charging fees to legacy networks and reclaiming unused or poorly utilized space). Those higher barriers to entry hurt innovation and competition. So v6 solves several technical and policies issues with the Internet, and maybe that's why we haven't seen speedy adoption. Because people have networks that exist today, some have paid a lot of money for IPv4 space and they want to make the most of that investment. They don't really have an incentive to implement V6 unless things start to break without it. I don't think v6 has been a failure half of all internet traffic runs on it! It powers the major cell phone networks, and large tech companies like meta have even gone v6 only in their data centers.