8 ms·
I could actually see us successfully inventing, and implementing, a multiverse concept for ipv4 to make these 32 bit addresses last another 40 years, as opposed
by digitalsushi 7y ago
I could actually see us successfully inventing, and implementing, a multiverse concept for ipv4 to make these 32 bit addresses last another 40 years, as opposed to throwing these non-upgradable, hardcoded v4 devices out. And this is from a pure v6 evangelist. I'm complaining, not being optimistic.
- cicloid 7y agowow; that is actually one of those comments of the internet that makes you think. The thing here is cross universe communication and legacy hardware/software stacks. This sounds like a great mental exercise.
- solotronics 7y agoIf only this already existed: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
- skissane 7y agoA sort of "multiverse" concept can already be useful for IPv4 private addresses. I have to deal with multiple environments which all internally have the same 10.x.y.z addresses. So, 10.1.2.3 can be two different instances depending on whether I am connecting to environment 1 or environment 2. In practice, the distinction is based on which SSH jumphost I am tunnelling through.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- justinsaccount 7y agosure, just prepend every address with some more bits to indicate which multiverse it's from. while you are at it you might as well add a lot of bits, say, 96 of them.
- hatsunearu 7y agoIPV6 is probably the worst "upgrade" to have ever rolled out and graced our world with its stinky existence. It's been a decade and IPv6 has barely entered the zeitgeist of the common internet user.
- sigstoat 7y agoi don't know what's in the "zeitgiest of the common internet user" but i'm pretty sure IPv4 isn't in there either. besides, https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- easytiger 7y ago> It's been a decade and IPv6 has barely entered the zeitgeist of the common internet user. It has not been a decade! I remember printing out the draft spec in the late 1990s thinking that I have to get ahead of this curve. Twenty years in the making. I recall at the time thinking initially that the obscure nomenclature for addressing would be annoying, but that it clearly would be fine. What do I know. In 2010 hackernews luminaries predicted the ipv6 momentum singlularity here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236048 The fact of the matter is very very large private corporate networks do not need more addressing space. ISPs use CGnats. Most home broadband routers|modems are junk. It is just a mess
- throwawaycert 7y agoMore than a quarter of Google's traffic today is IPv6. So apparently ISP's representing a quarter of their traffic don't consider the marketing oxymoron that is "carrier grade nat" an adequate substitute for IPv6...
- criley2 7y ago"as opposed to throwing these non-upgradable, hardcoded v4 devices out" Prepending bits wasn't a solution for the problem he discussed.
- 7y ago
- TylerE 7y agoIsn't that pretty much what we're already doing, since almost every device exists behind some kind of NAT?
- pushpop 7y agoAlso VLANs can create a “multiverse” of IPv4 addresses behind a single NAT. But since VLANs are a layer 2 concept it means you can in theory use them with IPv6 as well (albeit I’ve never personally tested that theory)
- wging 7y agoAre you describing something different from NAT?
- digitalsushi 7y agoYes, but I didn't imagine it very deeply; NAT is rather like a PBX, which rather necessarily provides only a subset of mappings to the Internet. (I suppose it is a math exercise what the perfect NAT would be, if the Internet were exactly two NATted networks facing each other). When I said invent, I was supposing we do invent one little extra bit to IPv4, wherein we default to this IPv4 Internet, but we could somehow specify another "universe" and simply have another entire IPv4 network, ad nauseum. Some proprietary routing topography would presumably exist as an inner layer, providing decades of new complexities, masking the implementation for naive ipv4 stacks that couldn't be updated. Those, could continue to exist unawares and perhaps very disjoint between "universes". Anyways, I am not an Internet architect, and this idea is entirely foolhardy since we have a perfectly good IPv6 universe to move into, one that barely has unpacked the moving boxes from the previous. I suppose all I meant, is that we might invest some more energy in IPv4 before we're really done with it.
- paulie_a 7y agoHardcoded ipv4 non upgradeable devices should be trashed. They should be actively blocked or redirected to a site that offers quality hardware (Cisco need not apply)
- paulie_a 7y agoPlease explain why I was downvoted? I'd actually like to hear why non upgradeable hardware with hardcoded ips are ok? Hell the equipment probably has hardcoded creds that are part of critical infrastructure too.
- LilBytes 7y agoWhy not start with the why of your own argument?
- paulie_a 7y agoBecause it's lazy development and 30 decade old throw away equipment that is essentially worthless should be fostered still. Rip the band-aid off and replace crappy hardware that managed to make the rest of connections terrible for everyone else My argument is to trash crappy equipment.
- kolinko 7y agoThe downvotes may be due to a way you formulate your arguments. Some people may see them as lacking in empathy and arrogant. You didn’t seem to take into consideration all the places where 30-year old equipment is still good, the reasons for why stuff is not uogradeable, nor people who cannot afford spending $100 for the new stuff.