upvote
> Just like with IPv6.

Yes, but the compatibility is very very easy to support for both hardware vendors, softwares, sysadmins etc. Some things might need a gentle stroke (mostly just enlarge a single bitfield) but after that everything just works, hardware, software, websites, operators.

A protocol is a social problem, and ipv6 fails exactly there.

reply
What slowed ipv6 wasn’t the design of ipv6, it was the invention of NAT and CGNAT.

Even still. The rollout is still progressing, and new systems like Matter are IPv6 only.

reply
What stymies IPv6 is human laziness more than anything else. It's not hard to set up. Every network I run has been dual stack for 10 years now, with minimal additional effort. People are just too lazy to put forth even a minimal effort when they believe that there's no payoff to it.
reply
Yes, I was wondering if I was missing something reading the hypothetical: This is still splits the Internet into two incompatible (but often bridged etc.) subnetworks, one on the v4, one on the v4x side, right?

It just so happens that, unlike for v6, v4 and v4x have some "implicit bridges" built-in (i.e. between everything in v4 and everything in v4x that happens to have the last 96 bits unset). Not sure if that actually makes anything better or just kicks the can down the road in an even more messy way.

reply
> everything in v4x that happens to have the last 96 bits unset

That's pretty much identical to 6in4 and similar proposals.

The Internet really needs a variant of the "So, you have an anti spam proposal" meme that used to be popular. Yes, it kill fresh ideas in the bud sometimes, but it also helps establish a cultural baseline for what is constructive discussion.

Nobody needs to hear about the same old ideas that were subsumed by IPv6 because they required a flag day, delayed address exhaustion only about six months, or exploded routing tables to impossible sizes.

If you have new ideas, let's hear them, but the discussion around v6 has been on constant repeat since before it was finalized and that's not useful to anyone.

reply
This wasn't a proposal, but an alternate history. The world where the people who wished for IPv4 but with extra address space get their way. By the end I come down on being happy with we're in the IPv6 world, but wishing interoperability could be slicker.
reply
I feel like the greatest vindication of v6 is that I’m reading the same old arguments served over a quietly working v6 connection more often than not. While people were busy betting on the non-adoption of v6, it just happened.

—Sent from my IPv6 phone

reply
> The Internet really needs a variant of the "So, you have an anti spam proposal" meme that used to be popular.

For those unfamiliar:

* https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

reply
deleted
reply
I might be interpreting wrong, but doesn't IPv6 also have a "implicit bridge" for IPv4?
reply
If it does that's great, but why couldn't I connect to IPv6-only services back when my ISP was IPv4 only?
reply
IPv6 had an implicit bridge called 6to4 but it was phased out because it wasn't that reliable.
reply
No, in this hypothetical, routers that don't know about IPv4x will still route based on the top 32 bits of the address which is still in the same place for IPv4 packets. If your machine on your desk and the other machine across the internet both understand IPv4x, but no other machines in the middle do, you'll still get your packets across.
reply
Well no, all the routers on your subnet need to understand it.

So let’s say your internet provider owns x.x.x.x, it receives a packet directed to you at x.x.x.x.y.y… , forwards it to your network, but your local router has old software and treats all packages to x.x.x.x.* as directed to it. You never receive any medssagea directly to you evem though your computer would recognise IPv4x.

It would be a clusterfuck.

reply
Your local machine isn't on the IPv4 internet if it doesn't have a globally routable IPv4 address.

Your home router that sits on the end of a single IPv4 address would need to know about IPv4x, but in this parallel world you'd buy a router that does.

reply
The advantage, as i see it, is that this could be done incrementally. Every new router/firmware/os could add support, until support is ubiquitous.

Contrast this with ip6, which is a completely new system, and thus has a chicken and egg problem.

reply
That is how v6 worked though. Every router and consumer device supports v6 and has for a very long time now. The holdup ended up being ISPs.

Today it seems most ISPs support it but have it behind an off by default toggle.

reply
deleted
reply