New Patches Allow Building Linux IPv6-Only, Option to Deprecate "Legacy" IPv4

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-IPv6-IPv4-Legacy-Knobs

44•Bender•1h ago

Comments

rafaelcosta•45m ago

As it should. Date notwithstanding, I would actually enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux. I know some people don't care at all, but the internet was made to be addressable. IPv6 is the only shot we have to go back to that.

nslsm•20m ago

This reminds me of the ways the governments screw over people to force them to do things they don’t want to.

huijzer•11m ago

Please no. I used to have a Dutch ISP a few months ago that did not support IPv6 yet. (Odido. Same ISP that leaked my data in a big hack.)

everdrive•10m ago

- I don't want my interfaces to have multiple IP addresses

- I don't want my devices to have public, discoverable IPs

- I like NAT and it works fine

- I don't want to use dynamic DNS just so I have set up a single home server without my ISP rotating my /64 for no reason (and no SLAAC is not an answer because I don't want multiple addresses per interface)

- I don't need an entire /48 for my home network

IPv6 won't help the internet "be addressable." Almost everyone is moving towards centralized services, and almost no one is running home servers. IPv4 is not what is holding this back.

petcat•33m ago

It will be a neat experiment, but I think most software will break and will remain broken indefinitely and then people will turn to LLMs to try to automate fixing all of it and that will turn into a mess just due to the sheer amount of changes required with little scrutiny.

gear54rus•27m ago

Perhaps it's time to submit patches that allow building it without IPv6 instead. Countless hours of configuration meddling will be saved.

zamadatix•12m ago

Not sure if you're taking the piss or just missed it but allowing one to build with either protocol alone is one of the genuine ideas in this joke:

> Yeah. The date notwithstanding, I do actually think we should do most of this for real.

> Maybe we don't get away with the actual deprecation and the warnings on use just yet, and maybe we won't even get away with calling the config option CONFIG_LEGACY_IP, although I would genuinely like to see us moving consistently towards saying "Legacy IP" instead of "IPv4" everywhere.

> But we should clean up the separation of CONFIG_INET and CONFIG_IPV[64] and make it possible to build with either protocol alone.

Daegalus•32m ago

great, now can we convince the rest of the internet to start adding AAAA records and ipv6 endpoints for things. Github is still a nightmare to use DNS64 and NAT64 to access those from IPv6 only machines.

Or all the Container based stuff that still falls flat with ipv6 only modes. Docker still shits the bed if you dont give it ipv4 unless you do a lot of manual overrides to things. A bunch of Envoy based gateway proxies fail on internal ipv6 resources in a k8s cluster that runs on ARM64.

There is just a bunch of nonsense you have to deal with if you choose the ipv6-only route

Dont get me started on CDNs like Bunny or Load Balancers as a service like those from Hetzner, UpCloud, etc that don't work with ipv6 origins.

Source: Trying to run a ipv6 only self-hosted box on hetzner.

mhitza•5m ago

I've tried to run an IPv6 only box on Hetzner 2-3 years ago. Didn't have a problem with the platform, but with RedHat because subscription-manager didn't work over a IPv6-only stack.

CookieCrisp•21m ago

We’re so close guys! Another 25 years and we might almost be there!

porridgeraisin•12m ago

I suppose this will lead to a classic torvalds rant. I will be watching r/linusrants

zamadatix•5m ago

Good stuff (both the joke and the genuine proposal of splitting the config options for IPv4 and IPv6).