[K2L8M11N2]

But it does, that's what ::ffff:0:0/96 is for

[remram]

I can't `ping ::ffff:192.168.0.1` and have it ping my router. There is a range reserved for representing IPv4 addresses, but the stack doesn't translate.

[rnhmjoj]

You can if you have NAT64:

    $ ping 64:ff9b::1.1.1.1
    PING 64:ff9b::1.1.1.1(one.one.one.one (64:ff9b::101:101)) 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from one.one.one.one (64:ff9b::101:101): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=10.4 ms
    64 bytes from one.one.one.one (64:ff9b::101:101): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=10.0 ms

[Dagger2]

It does translate, but it doesn't work for ping because ping bypasses most of the stack by sending raw packets. Try something like `telnet ::ffff:192.168.0.1 80`.

[throw0101b]

> I can't `ping ::ffff:192.168.0.1` and have it ping my router.

How would that even work in theory?

How would a ('legacy'?) host that only understands the 32-bit data structure of IPv4 addresses talk to a >32-bit data structure IPv6 addressed host?

[loa_in_]

But you can "ping $address" regardless of which IP version it's using. Please, elaborate what are you trying to solve.

[fanf2]

That part of IPv6 is mostly deprecated. The more modern version is NAT64 which uses 64:ff9b::/96 by default.

[FuriouslyAdrift]

Those aren't publicly routable though... that's the problem.

[coryrc]

Couldn't we just make it so?