8 ms·

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast...

Arubis 4y ago
Thank you. This is wild.
blibble 4y ago
that seems completely insane that logic has been hard-coded inside every OS and vast amounts of software for 30+ years and to gain less than 0.8%? they'd do better targeting the reserved multicast range
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  > inside every OS and vast amounts of software for 30+ years Ha. Ha. Ha. > that logic has been hard-coded inside The thing is what some things are literally hardcoded. I have a whole bunch of network gear circa 2010 in production. It does support IPv6, but for the most part it is extremely rudimentary. What do you want from a box what implements SSH by running a telnet session over a no-auth SSH session? And while I can run the latest Windows/Linux/Whatever on my server gear, the network gear is not that simple to upgrade.
  - vlan0 4y ago
    >I have a whole bunch of network gear circa 2010 in production I ran into this 10 years ago. I decided to roll out IPv6 to clients. Router docs said it was supported. Then I watched CPU usage peg because every packet hit the CPU. Turns out it was implemented in software; no ASIC support. Was quite the buzz kill.
    - p_l 4y ago
      Now consider that there are network components in the wild that have literal latch on first octet equaling 127 which triggers packet drop, and this proposal could drop hw acceleration for v4 too
- greyface- 4y ago
  > they'd do better targeting the reserved multicast range https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-02.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast...
kortex 4y ago
What in the actual eff. Anything except actually switching fully to ipv6, amirite? Trying to see the most charitable position here - is there an aspect in which redefining 127/8 to 127/16 across billions of devices is actually feasible?
- accountofme 4y ago
  I used to work tech support for an ISP years ago.... Trying to get people to find their modem and see if it was plugged into the wall was effort. Imagine trying to get the same people to upgrade router firmware...... no chance
  - jSherz 4y ago
    I assume that most ISPs push out updates automatically unless the hardware is user provided (and thus user supported)? I've been through several rounds of "we're sending you a new router" with UK ISPs where you're aggressively reminded to switch.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    This is why the ISP routers and modems have all introduced remote updates from the ISP, sometimes going further with extra telemetry[0]. Not a great situation for those with the technical knowledge, but I don't think we can expect people to upgrade their router FW on their own. 0: https://old.reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/mqfy9a/just_got_our_new_bgw320_installed_however_the/guhaanr/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/mqfy9a/just_got_our_ne...
    - wyager 4y ago
      I was pissed to learn that arris DOCSIS modems do not allow you, the owner, to install firmware updates or adjust most settings. Only the ISP gets to do that.
      - X-Istence 4y ago
        That's because bandwidth caps are enforced by the cable modem and not further downstream. When you pay for 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, that is enforced by the cable modem. Earlier versions of cable modems had flaws that allowed consumers to push configs on the ethernet port and uncap their cable modems and gain higher speeds than they had paid for.
bombcar 4y ago
A slightly more insane but maybe a bit more practical would have been to try to move 10.x and friends into 127.x.
Tsiklon 4y ago
Ohh wow - I didn't think there were any serious proposals for this, this sounds like madness.
twic 4y ago
Expires: 12 May 2022 I couldn't find a newer edition, so hopefully this has gone to the great standards track in the sky.
- greyface- 4y ago
  Here's a newer edition! :) https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-01.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast... Expires: 8 September 2022

Arubis 4y ago

Thank you. This is wild.

blibble 4y ago

that seems completely insane that logic has been hard-coded inside every OS and vast amounts of software for 30+ years and to gain less than 0.8%? they'd do better targeting the reserved multicast range

justsomehnguy 4y ago
> inside every OS and vast amounts of software for 30+ years Ha. Ha. Ha. > that logic has been hard-coded inside The thing is what some things are literally hardcoded. I have a whole bunch of network gear circa 2010 in production. It does support IPv6, but for the most part it is extremely rudimentary. What do you want from a box what implements SSH by running a telnet session over a no-auth SSH session? And while I can run the latest Windows/Linux/Whatever on my server gear, the network gear is not that simple to upgrade.
- vlan0 4y ago
  >I have a whole bunch of network gear circa 2010 in production I ran into this 10 years ago. I decided to roll out IPv6 to clients. Router docs said it was supported. Then I watched CPU usage peg because every packet hit the CPU. Turns out it was implemented in software; no ASIC support. Was quite the buzz kill.
  - p_l 4y ago
    Now consider that there are network components in the wild that have literal latch on first octet equaling 127 which triggers packet drop, and this proposal could drop hw acceleration for v4 too
greyface- 4y ago
> they'd do better targeting the reserved multicast range https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-02.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast...

kortex 4y ago

What in the actual eff. Anything except actually switching fully to ipv6, amirite? Trying to see the most charitable position here - is there an aspect in which redefining 127/8 to 127/16 across billions of devices is actually feasible?

accountofme 4y ago
I used to work tech support for an ISP years ago.... Trying to get people to find their modem and see if it was plugged into the wall was effort. Imagine trying to get the same people to upgrade router firmware...... no chance
- jSherz 4y ago
  I assume that most ISPs push out updates automatically unless the hardware is user provided (and thus user supported)? I've been through several rounds of "we're sending you a new router" with UK ISPs where you're aggressively reminded to switch.
- judge2020 4y ago
  This is why the ISP routers and modems have all introduced remote updates from the ISP, sometimes going further with extra telemetry[0]. Not a great situation for those with the technical knowledge, but I don't think we can expect people to upgrade their router FW on their own. 0: https://old.reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/mqfy9a/just_got_our_new_bgw320_installed_however_the/guhaanr/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/mqfy9a/just_got_our_ne...
  - wyager 4y ago
    I was pissed to learn that arris DOCSIS modems do not allow you, the owner, to install firmware updates or adjust most settings. Only the ISP gets to do that.
    - X-Istence 4y ago
      That's because bandwidth caps are enforced by the cable modem and not further downstream. When you pay for 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, that is enforced by the cable modem. Earlier versions of cable modems had flaws that allowed consumers to push configs on the ethernet port and uncap their cable modems and gain higher speeds than they had paid for.

bombcar 4y ago

A slightly more insane but maybe a bit more practical would have been to try to move 10.x and friends into 127.x.

Tsiklon 4y ago

Ohh wow - I didn't think there were any serious proposals for this, this sounds like madness.

twic 4y ago

Expires: 12 May 2022 I couldn't find a newer edition, so hopefully this has gone to the great standards track in the sky.

greyface- 4y ago
Here's a newer edition! :) https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-01.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast... Expires: 8 September 2022