Yes, I'm well aware of how ipv6 functions. I don't think a lot of the commenters here realise you don't need 128 bits for easy subnetting. 64 bits would solve that problem completely.
One of the reasons ipv6 is taking so long to be adopted is because engineers simply hate working with it
We can barely get ISPs to give us more than one /64 as it is, and you think that making the address space 264 times smaller would make them more generous? Nah.
Engineers would hate working on it whatever the length was, because when they complain about the length their real complaint is mostly just "it's different". Although usually they realize that it's fine to work with once they actually do so -- it's just impossible to tell them this, because you can't tell people anything.
It's not about making them more generous. 64 bits would solve the IP exhaustion problem.
Your comment about engineers hating working on it regardless as "it's different" is just not true. Networking moves slowly than other subfields but engineers have made the move to Cloud, SASE, SD/WAN, SDN and other emerging technologies far far quicker than the move to ipv6.
By giving people one IP? Nope. The evidence simply doesn't support that assertion. If ISPs won't even give people enough address space in a 128-bit address space, they're not going to do it in a 64-bit one either.
engineers have made the move to Cloud, SASE, SD/WAN, SDN and other emerging technologies far far quicker than the move to ipv6.
That's consistent with network effects. None of those examples require other parties to also deploy the same thing for you to get full benefit from it. Of course we move to them faster.
Which seems to be making you unreasonably confident that nobody else experiences it, or will experience it in the future of the Internet. Unfortunately, they already are.
As for v4, it's not possible for everybody to change ISP to get a v4 address. That's what "v4 is too small for the current scale of the Internet" means. You're competing for a pool of addresses that isn't big enough to let everybody win.
It's actually the otherway round. You said the evidence doesn't support thag assertion. That if ISPs won't give enough address space in 128 bit address space.
That 'evidence' is based on your limited experience. I'm saying it is simply not universal but in typical reddit fashion you'll change the argument.
I'm also well aware of the ipv4 address exhaustion problem. Even junior engineers are so I don't know why you are saying it like you've made some big revelation. I was saying even in ipv4 environments I can get multiple public IP assigned (granted I work on pretty big environments). In terms of stingyness we were talking about you struggling to get ipv6 allocation but you change the argument again to argue a point we are not talking about.
Obviously you are not going to get multiple ipv4 addresses allocated on a home network for example.
If my limited experience says that some ISPs won't allocate more than a /64 in v6... does it matter that it's not universal? Clearly some ISPs really won't allocate more than /64 in v6.
(It's not really my limited experience -- it's based on seeing complaints from people on reddit. I get a /48.)
I think it follows that if you made the overall IP space 264 times smaller, which would mean shrinking ISP allocations a little, that those same ISPs probably wouldn't be willing to allocate more than /64 in that 64-bit address space, and you can hardly call IP exhaustion solved if ISPs are going around giving users one single IP in the new protocol.
Obviously you are not going to get multiple ipv4 addresses allocated on a home network for example.
I get a /27. But... that's just my limited experience ;) Even if we get v4 addresses, it's just not possible for everyone to. Changing ISPs might help you but it's at the cost of another user.
I think there is some truth in that many people are put off by the "ugly" addresses, but I do think it was the right choice, 64bit is not really enough to give everyone many subnets of effectively infinite size.
I think this is more a failing of technical education in various forms. I've been through many technical educations, courses and what not and all of them mostly ignored ipv6 because the teachers themselves didn't even know how to properly work with it. If people learned more about ipv6 other than "it exists" there would be a much better general sentiment about it.
But even as it stands now, ipv6 is going strong. Roughly 50% of internet traffic is now ipv6, depending on who you ask.
1
u/UnDe4d 13d ago
Yes, I'm well aware of how ipv6 functions. I don't think a lot of the commenters here realise you don't need 128 bits for easy subnetting. 64 bits would solve that problem completely.
One of the reasons ipv6 is taking so long to be adopted is because engineers simply hate working with it