So 10.20.30.40 would be an IPv4 address, and 10.20.30.40:fa:be:4c:9d could be an IPv6 address. With the :00:00:00:00 suffix being equivalent to the IPv4 version.
I just made this up, so I'm sure that a couple years of deep thought by a council of scientists and engineers could come up with something even better.
What I argued was that IPv4 could be embedded into IPv6 address space if they had designed for it. But I agree, that the actual packet header layouts would need to look at least a bit different.
Like:
> Addresses in this group consist of an 80-bit prefix of zeros, the next 16 bits are ones, and the remaining, least-significant 32 bits contain the IPv4 address. For example, ::ffff:192.0.2.128 represents the IPv4 address 192.0.2.128. A previous format, called "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address", was ::192.0.2.128; however, this method is deprecated.[5]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#IPv4-mapped_IPv6_addresse...
& the following section for the follow-up embedding.
Like
> Addresses in this group consist of an 80-bit prefix of zeros, the next 16 bits are ones, and the remaining, least-significant 32 bits contain the IPv4 address. For example, ::ffff:192.0.2.128 represents the IPv4 address 192.0.2.128. A previous format, called "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address", was ::192.0.2.128; however, this method is deprecated.[5]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#IPv4-mapped_IPv6_addresse...
Or:
> For any 32-bit global IPv4 address that is assigned to a host, a 48-bit 6to4 IPv6 prefix can be constructed for use by that host (and if applicable the network behind it) by appending the IPv4 address to 2002::/16.
> For example, the global IPv4 address 192.0.2.4 has the corresponding 6to4 prefix 2002:c000:0204::/48. This gives a prefix length of 48 bits, which leaves room for a 16-bit subnet field and 64 bit host addresses within the subnets.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4
So you have to ship new code to every 'network element' to support your "IPv4+" plan. Just like with IPv6.
So you have to update DNS to create new resource record types ("A" is hard-coded to 32-bits) to support the new longer addresses, and have all user-land code start asking for, using, and understanding the new record replies. Just like with IPv6. (A lot of legacy code did not have room in data structures for multiple reply types: sure you'd get the "A" but unless you updated the code to get the "A+" address (for "IPv4+" addresses) you could never get to the longer with address… just like IPv6 needed code updates to recognize AAAA, otherwise you were A-only.)
You need to update socket APIs to hold new data structures for longer addresses so your app can tell the kernel to send packets to the new addresses. Just like with IPv6. In any 'address extension' plan the legacy code cannot use the new address space; you have to:
* update the IP stack (like with IPv6)
* tell applications about new DNS records (like IPv6)
* set up translation layers for legacy-only code to reach extended-only destination (like IPv6 with DNS64/NAT64, CLAT, etc)
You're updating the exact same code paths in both the "IPv4+" and IPv6 scenarios: dual-stack, DNS, socket address structures, dealing with legacy-only code that is never touched to deal with the larger address space.
Deploying the new "IPv4+" code will take time, there will partial deployment of IPv4+ is no different than having partial deployment of IPv6: you have islands of it and have to fall back to the 'legacy' IPv4-plain protocol when the new protocol fails to connect:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs
"Just adding more bits" means updating a whole bunch of code (routers, firewalls, DNS, APIs, userland, etc) to handle the new data structures. There is no "just": it's the same work for IPv6 as with any other idea.
(This idea of "just add more addresses" comes up in every discussion of IPv6, and people do not bother thinking about what needs to change to "just" do it.)
> If IPv4 were more painfully broken then the switch would have happened long ago.
IPv4 is very painful for people not in the US or Western Europe that (a) were now there early enough to get in on the IPv4 address land rush, or (b) don't have enough money to buy as many IPv4 addresses as they need (assuming someone wants to sell them).
So a lot of areas of the world have switched, it's just that you're perhaps in a privileged demographic and are blind to it.
The lack of pain is not really about the US & Western Europe have plenty of addresses or something of that nature, it's that alternative answers such as NAT and CG-NAT (i.e. double NAT where the carrier uses non-public ranges for the consumer connections) deployments are still growing faster in those regions than IPv6 adoption when excluding cellular networks (they've been pretty good about adopting IPv6 and are where most of the IPv6 traffic in those regions comes from).
However, I think people do get tripped up by the paradigm shift from DHCP -> SLAAC. That's not something that is an inevitable consequence of increasing address size. And compared to other details (e.g. the switch to multicasting, NDP, etc.), it's a change that's very visible to all operators and really changes how things work at a conceptual level.
For comparison IPv4 had:
- Static (1980 - original spec)
- RARP (1984 - standalone spec)
- BOOTP (1985 - standalone spec)
- DHCP (1993 - standalone spec)
- Static (1995 - pre, 1998 final spec)
- SLAAC (1996 - pre standalone, 1998 final standalone)
- DHCPv6 (2003 - standalone)
There are some nice benefits of SLAAC over DHCP such as modest privacy: if device addresses are randomized they become harder to guess/scan; if there's not a central server with a registration list of every device even more so (the first S, Stateless). That's a great potential win for general consumers and a far better privacy strategy than NAT44 accidental (and somewhat broken) privacy screening. It's at odds with corporate device management strategies where top-down assignment "needs to be the rule" and device privacy is potentially a risk, but that doesn't make SLAAC a bad idea as it just increases the obvious realization that consumer needs and big corporate needs are both very different styles of sub-networks of the internet and they are conflicting a bit. (Also those conflicting interests are why consumer equipment is leading the vanguard to IPv6 and corporate equipment is languishing behind in command-and-control IPv4 enclaves.)
Interestingly, what you're describing really is similar to how many languages represent an IPv4 address internally. Go embeds IPv4 addresses inside of IPv6 structs as ::ffff:{IPv4 address}: https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/go1.26.2:src/net/ip.go;...
This is super useful because (at least on Linux) IPv6 sockets per default are dual-stack and bind to both IPv6 and IPv6 (except if you are using the IPV6_V6ONLY sockopt or a sysctl), so you don't need to open and handle IPv4 and IPv6 sockets separately (well, maybe some extra code for logging/checking properly with the actual IPv4 address).
That is also documented in ipv6(7):
IPv4 connections can be handled with the v6 API by using
v4-mapped-on-v6 address type; thus a program needs to support only
this API type to support both protocols. This is handled
transparently by the address handling functions in the C library.
IPv4 and IPv6 share the local port space. When you get an IPv4
connection or packet to an IPv6 socket, its source address will be
mapped to v6.
- How they would format the display of the bits
- Where in the bit pattern IPv4 mapped addresses should go
- Coming up with some variation of NAT64, NAT464, or similar concepts to communicate between/over IPv4 and IPv6 networks
- Blaming the optional extensions/features of IPv6 for being too complex and then inventing something which has 90% of the same parts which are actually required to use
It's even easy to get distracted in a world of "what you can do with IPv6" instead of just using the basics. The things that actually make IPv6 adoption slow are:
- A change in the size of the address field which requires special changes and configuration in network gear, operating systems, and apps because it's not just one protocol to think about the transport of again until the migration is 100% complete.
If IPv4 were more painfully broken then the switch would have happened long ago. People just don't care to move fast because they don't need to. IPv6 itself is fine though and, ironically, it's the ones getting the most value out of the optional extensions (such as cellular providers) who actually started to drive IPv6 adoption.