Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

30 years on and if I have a machine with an ipv6 only network and run

"ping 1.1.1.1"

it doesn't work.

If stacks had moved to ipv6 only, and the OS and network library do the translation of existing ipv4, I think things would have moved faster. Every few months I try out my ipv6 only network and inevitably something fails and I'm back to my ipv4 only network (as I don't see the benefit of dual-stack, just the headaches)

Sure you'd need a 64 gateway, but then that can be the same device that does your current 44 natting.

 help



There are lots of places that have IPv6-only networks and access IPv4 through NAT64. It makes sense for new company networks that can control what software gets installed.

The main limitation is software that only supports IPv4. This would affect your proposed solution of doing the translation in the stack. There is no way to fix an IPv4-only software that has 32-bit address field.


Yes there is, you have the device the software is on do the translation transparently. The software thinks its talking to 1.2.3.4, it's actually talking to ::ffff:1.2.3.4, but the application doesn't need to know that as the translation is occuring in the network stack (driver, module, whatever).

> There are lots of places that have IPv6-only networks and access IPv4 through NAT64

I've just deployed a new mostly internal network, and this was my plan.

The network itself worked, but the applications wouldn't. Most required applications could cope, but not all, meaning I need to deploy ipv4, meaning that there's no point in deploying ipv6 as well as ipv4, just increases the maintenance and security for no business benefits.


This works if you have 464xlat turned on. It's mostly used by phones though.

It's bit weird how despite Linux kernel having otherwise fairly advanced network stack, the 464xlat and other transition mechanism situation is not great. There are some out of tree modules (jool and nat46) available, but nothing in mainline. Does anyone know why that is?


And if that's applies across the board, in 20 years time that might have filtered through to mean ipv4 can be dropped in my company.

I'd rather see this at a lower level than network manager and bodging in with bpf, so it's just a default part of any device running a linux network stack, but I don't know enough about kernel development and choices to know how possible that is in practice.

This should have been supported in the kernel 25 years ago though if the goal was to help ipv6 migration


I agree. Someone was working on that, though the work seems quite stale now: https://codeberg.org/IPv6-Monostack/ipxlat-net-next



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: