4 ms·
I wonder if you could use something like IP in IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_in_IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_in_IP), basically just slap another I
by seiferteric 5y ago
I wonder if you could use something like IP in IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_in_IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_in_IP), basically just slap another IP header on your packet so your IP becomes two 32 bit IPs, one for your ISP and one for you.
- duskwuff 5y agoThat sounds really painful to work with, and it would still largely lack backwards compatibility -- hosts on both ends would need to be patched to support the "double address".
- seiferteric 5y agopatching hosts would be easy, but the routers in between would probably not need any changes and that's big since it was one of the holdups of v6 deployment.
- welterde 5y agoThat exists for IPv6 in various variants: 6in4, teredo, 6to4, etc. (and the inverse variants of tunneling IPv4 over IPv6 also exist in many different forms). Many of those can be used even if your own ISP has no support for IPv6 at all. Many of the require manual configuration (as in the case of tunnel brokers) however, which makes it less likely for non-technical users to use them.
- seiferteric 5y agoThe idea would be to add first class support for it in the OS. Your ISP DHCP could add an addtional option specifying your upstream ISP address as well as your local address for example. Then your hosts interface will get configured with both addresses and automatically add wrap outgoing ip packets in the outer address.
- welterde 5y agoThis would also be possible with IPv6 (not with DHCP involvement, but with other mechanisms). But the issue is that some ISPs (and cloud providers) simply don't care or even actively drag their feet (since it may be in their business interest to do so for now).