13 ms·
IPv10
- bertolo1988 9y agoWhy not IPv16 and fix the problem for ever?
- corobo 9y ago> fix the problem forever Situation: There are 14 competing standards "14?! Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases." "Yeah!" Situation: There are 15 competing standards Src: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
- ZenoArrow 9y agoIf you're getting downvoted and can't work out why, that XKCD is massively overused and shoehorned into conversations that have no bearing on what's being discussed. The whole '15 competing standards' meme only really makes sense when there are 15 competing standards bodies. In the case of IP addresses, there is only one standards body, the IETF. There is one legacy standard (IPv4), one new standard (IPv6), and the only question is how best to ease the transition between the two. I see no problem if that transition relies on an interim protocol.
- corobo 9y agoWin some, lose some. In hindsight it was pretty shoehorned in.
- oarsinsync 9y agoIf only we didn't have multiple competing transitional mechanisms defined as standards already.
- ZenoArrow 9y agoYou're suggesting there are networking standards that compete with IPv4/IPv6? What are those standards?
- mcguire 9y agoThere's like 4 (?) different IPv4/v6 integration systems. None of which worked the last time I fiddled with some of them.
- ZenoArrow 9y agoWhich would suggest there's room for an integration system that does work. In any case, the goal is a transition to IPv6, as long as the integration systems all share that goal there can be interoperability between them.
- joeblau 9y agoWill it fix it? This seems like a scaling issue we're going to have to deal with forever.
- jrimbault 9y agoIPv6 has a 2^128 address pool. edit: theoretically, we'll only ever use a fraction of that, both by design and because that's a huge number
- ghshephard 9y agoWell, because there is no equivalent to CIDR with IPv6, what you really need to focus on is the 2^64 networks available. Still a big number.
- jrimbault 9y agoThat's what I meant in my edit :)
- oarsinsync 9y agoAnd yet I still have /127, /126, /120 and /112 IPv6 subnets running on my network. Just because the IETF says SLAAC or bust doesn't mean it's true.
- ghshephard 9y agoGenuinely curious - Why? We were considering doing so at one point for PtP links (equiv to a /30 or a /31 if you area really bleeding edge) - but then decided that there wasn't any reason to not just use /64s everywhere. I take your point though - it certainly is theoretically (and in practice) possible to doing something other than a /64 - I've just never seen it in the wild.
- cesarb 9y agoI have heard of one good reason: with a /64, someone sending packets to random addresses within that /64 will fill up the neighbor cache, while with a smaller network like a /126, that can't happen.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mcguire 9y agoIPv27, with 3192-bit addresses, for when you're running TCP/IP on quarks.
- quickthrower2 9y agoWhy V10. Because 4+6?
- rbinv 9y agoYes: "IPv10 allows hosts from two IP versions (IPv4 and IPv6) to be able to communicate, and this can be accomplished by having an IPv10 packet containing a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the same IP packet header."
- Arnavion 9y ago>From here the name of IPv10 arises, as the IP packet can contain (IPv6 + IPv4 /IPv4 + IPv6) addresses in the same layer 3 packet header.
- agumonkey 9y agoWinamp did it first
- jwfxpr 9y agoReally whipped the llama's ass?
- 9y ago
- adtac 9y agoMildly off-topic, but I've always wondered about having a non-fixed length address scheme: if there are 64 bits in the address, let the first 8 bits (64/8 = 8) be 1 and the 9th bit be 0. This way we encode the length of the address. After that, every bit is available for use (all 64 - 9 = 55 bits). Suddenly want to increase the domain from 2^55 to something much higher? Use a 15-byte address where the first 15 bits are 1s and the 16th bit is 0. The rest of the (15*8 - 16 = 104) bits are available. You get the point - we can arbitrarily increase the size without giving up flexibility. What's the drawback if we use something like this? Routing troubles? Speed? Alternative method: the addresses can be as many bits as required, but every bit index that's a multiple of 8 must be 1. The last byte is signified by a byte having 0 at index 0. Basically: [1]1010110 [1]0001111 [0]1101011 ^ last byte
- nightcracker 9y ago> What's the drawback if we use something like this? Routing troubles? Speed? This problem is not one of technical difficulties. There are many protocols that could be designed that are future-proof, efficient, etc. The issue is entirely social. Everyone needs to use the same protocol(s), so there's a HEAVY emphasis on 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
- icebraining 9y agoYour method is essentially how UTF-8 works. I think the problem is implementing that efficiently in hardware, which is needed for routers.
- WhoooItsMe 9y agoNot quite, UTF-8 encodes the length of the sequence in the first byte, instead of marking the end, this makes more sense because it is easier to detect broken input. 1110xxxx 10xxxxxx 0xxxxxxx obviously has a byte missing and is broken, but [1]xxxxxxx [0]xxxxxxx could have any number of bytes missing an would just yield the wrong value.
- codesnik 9y agosomething like this was used in MIDI protocol
- drinchev 9y agoExcerpt : - That means, if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv4 address in the destination address field, the router should use the IPv4 routing table to make a routing decision, and if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv6 address in the destination address field, the router should use the IPv6 routing table to make a routing decision. - All Internet connected hosts must be IPv10 hosts to be able to communicate regardless the used IP version, and the IPv10 deployment process can be accomplished by ALL technology companies developing OSs for hosts networking and security devices. Earlier in the RFC ( reasoning on IPv6 support ) : ... also, not all enterprises devices support IPv6 and also many people are afraid of the service outage that can be caused due to this migration. If migrating to IPv10 requires the migration of the same infrastructure, what's the point of having it?
- roblabla 9y agoI'm pondering on this. I think the idea is to allow ipv6-only users to connect to ipv4-only users -- thus making the IPv6 migration "easier" for, e.g., ISPs that are deploying ipv6-only networks (especially on mobile). But the RFC doesn't really mention that anywhere. I might be missing something though.
- yorwba 9y agoThe ipv4-only users still need a way to specify an ipv6 address to talk to ipv6-only users. This RFC seems to suggest that they should just send an ipv10 packet. But then they wouldn't be ipv4-only anymore, and might as well adopt ipv6.
- iamfunatparties 9y agoProtocol names should be 128-bit wide to allow for future expansion in available protocols.
- Derbasti 9y ago> The first version of the Internet Protocol is IPv4. Version numbers are great!
- vog 9y agoI actually like their conservative approach with version numbers. For what it's worth, in IPv4 time there were some experiments with a new IP variant, those got the version 5. You won't find these anywhere in today's networks, but just to be sure, the next official version got number 6. The opposite is what we see in some programs and libraries: First, they publish version 1.2.2. Then version 1.2.3. But ooops, 1.2.3 had an issue. Well, let's just release a new tarball and label it 1.2.3 as well. Hopefully nobody noticed this. How big are the chances that somebody downloaded the broken package during the past 2 hours? (I guess using another number for the fixed release, such as 1.2.4, would have been too expensive. Or so.)
- baq 9y agohad to double check the date to see if it's not an April 1st. it isn't. wow.
- CodeWriter23 9y agoAs a side note, I was very confused about IPv6 addresses popping up in my server logs when I knew it only had IPv4 provisioned. Turns out CloudFlare had automatically published AAAA records for my domain and was v6-to-v4 proxying my inbound HTTP/HTTPS traffic. For free! Just another reason to love CloudFlare.
- exikyut 9y agoThat's... cute. But not breaking anything, so, huh. Not bad.
- lathiat 9y agoessentially because of X-Forwarded-For They have an even crazier feature that rewrites IPv6 source addresses as random but unique IPv4 addresses for software that can't deal with that: https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-to-not-enable-ipv6/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-to-...
- jgrahamc 9y agoThat feature isn't as nuts as you think. Clearly the IPv6 space doesn't compress 1-1 into the IPv4 space but this gives you way to work with the top 64 bits of the IPv6 address and then feed it into your anti-abuse system. If your abuse system works probabilistically then this isn't too problematic as this becomes just another signal. And IPv4-based systems already deal with multiple people behind the same IP because of NAT.
- peterwwillis 9y agoYou have users who can already access a site using IPv4, but want to use IPv6, and you have an anti-abuse system that lacks support, so you decided to invent a new kind of NAT, rather than require the customer to just fix their anti-abuse system, which they'd need to do on other platforms anyway? The feature isn't nuts, but the rationale seems so.
- networked 9y agohttps://twitter.com/The_Road_Series/status/868140346177355777 https://twitter.com/The_Road_Series/status/86814034617735577... This doesn't look good.
- jnbiche 9y agoWow, is this some kind of joke? This is the guy who created this new protocol? Hopefully, it's as good as dead now.
- morgh2000 9y agohttp://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.nl/2017/03/khaled-routing-protocol-krp.html http://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.nl/2017/03/khaled-rout... Link to said protocol with pretty pictures
- stephen_g 9y agoLook at his other draft proposals - he seems serious but seems to have no idea what's actually involved in designing or specifying a real protocol...
- svennek 9y agoI am not sure about the base idea, but isn't the ipv10 (i.e. protocol number 10) going to cause problems? Aren't hosts expected to choose the highest protocol number they understand? So basically this forever kills (protocol) ipv6 and replaces it with ipv6+ipv4, which is never going to fly (because the "underlying" ipv4 is sunsetting and hopefully gone within a decade)...
- thinkMOAR 9y agoEfforts to get ipv6 rolled out faster and easier are imho good. Though, not sure if this actually helps. I am not a fan of using hardware/mac addresses in ip addresses, in my opinion its a big security/privacy issue. Tracking, hardware details leaking etc. And somehow i think ipv10 will make the migration for some parties even less of a priority or less urge to 'finish' it. I think if they really want to 'promote' and accelerate IPv6 rollout... Facebook and Instagram should have ipv6 days only. E.g. one day in the week or month, you can only connect with facebook/instagram over ipv6; then you'll see how fast endusers will want to be on ipv6 (and once all endusers are dual stacked.. parties can slowly start disabling ipv4 all together). And then i assume the ipv4 only parties will make a bit of a hurry getting their ipv6 in order.
- saywatnow 9y agoI guess all it takes to push a draft is hubris. The clear fact it hasn't received editorial feedback from a single native speaker is an indication how popular this is. (not to shame non-native speakers!)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- nickcw 9y agoNot sure I understand why this is necessary... The IPv6 address space covers the IPv4 address space already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Representation > During the transition of the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6, it is typical to operate in a mixed addressing environment. For such use cases, a special notation has been introduced, which expresses IPv4-mapped and IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses by writing the least-significant 32 bits of an address in the familiar IPv4 dot-decimal notation, whereas all preceding ones are written in IPv6 format. For example, the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address ::ffff:c000:0280 is written as ::ffff:192.0.2.128, thus expressing clearly the original IPv4 address that was mapped to IPv6. That needs some sort of gateway to work, but I'm assuming that that is the kind of thing your ISP would do for you. And if you have to convert each IPv4 only host to an IPv10 host to use it, why not convert it to dual stack IPv4/IPv6 instead?
- mtgx 9y agoSome good not-easy-to-screw-up and default security and privacy features at the IP level would be nice to have in a new IP protocol.
- walshemj 9y agoBecause ipv6 was designed with not much thought to migration and interworking with ipv4
- davros 9y agoAnd migrating is all cost no benefit. And the problems ipv6 was intended to solve have long since been addressed better by other means (eg NAT).
- snuxoll 9y agoNAT doesn't solve the issues with IPv4, it merely delayed them. IPv6 is still the future, but everyone from ISP's to switch and router manufacturers have been dragging their feet on a real push to get us off IPv4. Hell, there are still modern switch platforms out there with full Layer 3 IPv4 support but IPv6 is curiously omitted - you've got to buy a bigger switch to get support for modern protocols (or an implementation that isn't totally gimped).
- princekolt 9y agoI have a better solution to the IPv4 problem. It will just take Google to put "Websites that provide IPv6 traffic routing will be prioritized on search results" in their search ranking rules – Bam! Problem solved. It seems to have worked with SSL.
- y04nn 9y agoThe web is not Internet, also all website servers would be IPv4/6 compatible but most clients would still use IPv4 to access the website and they largely outnumber servers.
- snuxoll 9y agoWake me when AWS, Azure or GCP have proper IPv6 support.
- mindcrime 9y agoHow do you define "proper IPv6 support"? AWS certainly has considerable support for IPv6 today: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-ipv6-update-global-support-spanning-15-regions-multiple-aws-services/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-ipv6-update-global-supp...
- snuxoll 9y agoWow, I never heard about this until now - it's about damned time! Now if Google and MS could step up to the plate we'd have a large chunk of services in a position ready to enable IPv6 support.
- oliwarner 9y agoReal IPv6 deployment is held up because of the 50-100 biggest ISPs in North America and Europe. Get them to start taking this seriously and everything else falls into line over night. The IETF barking out other suggestions is just a distraction.
- stephen_g 9y agoDon't worry, this is just a random submission from someone who also came up with the 'new' idea of accessing the Internet through satellites this year... (Posted above - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00) It's not going to be seriously considered (it doesn't make sense anyway - upgrading to this protocol would be the same effort as upgrading to IPv6 - it's entirely pointless).
- philjohn 9y agoThe UK is pretty much there on IPV6 - BT (and by extension anyone who uses BT's network, so, everyone except Virgin Cable and Kingston Communications in Hull) now offers native IPV6 - you get delegated a /56 (albeit a dynamic /56 allocation for most). The tricky part is router support - BT's own equipment supports it for the most part (Only the Smart Hub and Home Hub 5), but third party routers can be difficult - TPLink still only support /64 prefixes on their current firmware, and their firewall doesn't work properly when using their beta firmware that supports /56 prefixes. So - the infrastructure is there, but support is variable.
- cm2187 9y agoOne area where I am not keen to see IPv6 spreading is SMTP traffic. IP reputation while not perfect is still a useful layer of lipstick on the SMTP pig. One area where I am keen to see IPv6 spreading is IoT. I don't know if we can ever secure those things, but it will certainly make scanning the IP address space for vulnerable devices impractical.
- pilif 9y ago> IP reputation while not perfect is still a useful layer of lipstick on the SMTP pig. just use the prefix for reputation. You can assume that each user will have received a /48. Yes. There are some ISPs out there handing out /64's or even a /128, so it might be somewhat too broad, but blacklisting a the whole /48 and then white-listing on (rare) demand is probably the way to go.
- philjohn 9y agoCurrent recommendation is actually for a /56.
- zrm 9y agoIf you assume the user has a /48 when they really have a /64, you're off by a factor of 65536. For address blocks allocated to business customers, a nontrivial percentage (say 10%) may be operating mail servers. Which means that one misbehaving customer will cause you to block thousands of honest ones. That's a lot of white listing to do.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoIn contrast I look forward to not having my 20 year old domain (never used for commercial emails and with a volume of around 1 outgoing message per day) blocked because a completely different server that my ISP used has a client who started spamming. Google/Microsoft do this.
- bipson 9y agoThis is guy is something different (not that it would make his ideas worth any less, more on that later). Some of his recent efforts: Satellite Internet [0] (kudos whatidonteven) - I don't think he thought this one through. What is wrong with the current approach? Should we really erect wires in outer space? He is currently kind of harassing the IETF via mailing lists about IPv10, threatening "If the ideas explained on these drafts will be used, discussed or published by the ietf, legal actions will be taken." [1] - not really how the IETF works. The version number as "ingenious" 4+6 is annoying, IMO. That's not how version numbers work? His drawing on his his very own routing protocol - KRP - are also something [2]. Although the quality of his drawings has nothing to do with his ideas per se, it seems he rushed it together in an afternoon. I don't want to say that he is overestimating his own intelligence, rather that he is underestimating the efforts, hard work and intelligence of everyone else working in this field mostly professionally. His proposals can not easily be judged, because they dismiss almost everything that others have done previously. Why should so many smart people have missed these (obvious/simple) solutions? We are where we are for a reason. You need a good chain of arguments to "dismiss" the current state of the art. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00 [1] http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/RE-IPv10-KRP-and-RRP-IDs-Removal-td534031.html#a534090 http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/RE-IPv10-KRP-and-RRP-IDs-Remova... [2] http://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.co.at/ http://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.co.at/
- stephen_g 9y ago> What is wrong with the current approach? He seems to actually be completly unaware that satellite internet exists at all... (Judging from the second and third points of the introduction). Who knows what's going on though - maybe he's just young and inexperienced? This is exactly the kind of thing I might have done as a 13 year old if I had stumbled on the IETF...
- mmirate 9y agoIn other words: "this entire HN submission is spam".
- anoother 9y agoHis address is also interesting: The Road 6th of October City, Giza Egypt
- IpV8 9y agoShit, i've been overlooked entirely...
- cesarb 9y agoSome previous HN discussion about this happened within the following comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14419867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14419867
- ericfrederich 9y agoI have GigaBit internet from AT&T. Speeds have been terrible and pings were like 130ms. I disabled IPv6 on my laptop and things improved. I disabled IPv6 on my router and it improved even more. Do we really need IPv10?
- mikl 9y agoYou’re making a good case for something other than IPv6. And since we’re running out of IPv4 addresses, we will need to switch to something else, eventually.
- peterwwillis 9y agoIPv6 enabled in your tcp/ip stack doesn't create latency. You weren't even using IPv6 - ping is IPv4 by default.
- exabrial 9y agoThe ASCII Graphics in RFPs are getting more advanced these days
- jonawesomegreen 9y agoIn case folks haven't been involved in the IETF RFC process before, even though this is hosted on IETF.org this is just a ID (Internet Draft). They can be submitted by literally anyone. The tool to do so is here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ Lots of crazy things get submitted, and never looked at again. In order for drafts to stay alive they need to be updated with comments every 6 months. Sometimes they lead to things, and sometimes they don't. Usually some IETF working group has to be interested for a draft to go from a draft to an actual RFC. You can see the status of this draft here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/89166/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/89166/ You can find a list of current drafts here: https://www.ietf.org/download/id-abstract.txt https://www.ietf.org/download/id-abstract.txt Given the lack of comments on the draft, and the fact its not actually attached to an IETF working group, its fairly safe to say that this isn't actually going to become a real protocol anytime soon.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- olau 9y agoSlight correction, you have provided the link to the submission processing status, here's the link to the draft itself: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-omar-ipv10/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-omar-ipv10/
- randomerr 9y agoAnyone remember IPv7? Yeah, it was a thing: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1475.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1475.txt
- johnhenry 9y agoIPv10 = IPv4 + IPv6?
- ton31337 9y agofew cents from me about this /o\ http://blog.donatas.net/blog/2017/09/10/ipv10/ http://blog.donatas.net/blog/2017/09/10/ipv10/