4 ms·

OMG! What were we all thinking! Thank you redox99 for figuring this out. Only now that you have pointed out this idea is it suddenly obvious. But, since this i

OMG! What were we all thinking! Thank you redox99 for figuring this out. Only now that you have pointed out this idea is it suddenly obvious. But, since this is, you know, the entire internet, can you maybe write a more detailed specification? So like, when my TCP stack creates a presumably backwards compatible IPv4 header, where does it put the extra 4 bytes? Or do we only send these IPv4+ packets to devices that we also know are IPv4+? If we add four bytes at the end of the IPv4 header, then when I send to 12.4.1.0.8.8.8.8, then the legacy server will read it as 8.8.8.8 and send my information to Google. That seems bad. Or will we create a new IP header format? If so, how will we make sure that all the software on a given box understands the new format? How do we incrementally roll out these new applications, kernels, modules, etc, in such a way that we dont break the internet in interesting and fatal-for-real-people ways? Maybe we could deploy IPv4 and IPv4+ side-by-side, so that both are running, and so the new IPv4+ can fail with no risk to the IPv4 services? How about parsing IP addresses. What if I send to 10.44321? This is a valid IP address. Are we going to say that the various short-hand representations only apply to IPv4, so you an't shorten 127.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 to 127.1? How will we handle scripts where the subnet is specified as /24 independently of the address, such that IPv4+ subnets will contain 32 billion IPs instead of 256? Or do you imagine that IPv4 and IPv4+ scripts must be kept separate? I am looking forward to your specifications! While you are addressing all these issues, could we also look at expanding the number of ports available too? Also, what if IPv4+ used sixteen bytes, instead of eight?

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Please look at the structure of an IP header. Note the "options and padding" section. Also SECTIONS of the internet (that is, routers) can have IPV4+ packets wrapped in IPV4 packets that will transmit them through "IPV4-old" only branches. We pretend like the major routing backbones aren't known and fairly set in stone, and that routers don't know about each other. Yeah, his approach doesn't fix the Comcast-doesn't support-IPV6 and is stuck in old IPV4. But those places are using NAT of their own. If we have all these cgnats and other address translations happening, well shit how is that different that the IPv4 wrapping ipv4+ and other things. Also, oh yes please give me more fucking ports. IPv6 keeping the same number of ports is stupid. Please give me 64 bits of ports. Ok, I'll take 32. If you use 10.44321 for a port number these days, well I have no sympathy for you. As for /24, clearly that will mean "IPV4 /24", and whatever new protocol will use some other convention like /000024. But /24 maps to a bit mask. You just interpret the bit mask differently. Yes I am handwaving a ton of stuff. A ton. But ipv6 basically said "fuck you our way or the highway" and here we are. At this point, maybe we need a superprotocol ipv8 that will wrap the ipv6 address space, the old ipv4 address space, into an even bigger address space. Get the router vendors and designers back in the room.
- Dagger2 4y ago
  You should learn a bit about v6 before criticizing it for not doing things that it is doing. You're basically reinventing 6to4. > Also, oh yes please give me more fucking ports. IPv6 keeping the same number of ports is stupid. IP doesn't have ports.
- lowbloodsugar 4y ago
  I don't think you are refuting my claims. If you put the extra 4 bytes of address at the end of the header, telling the legacy software that the header is now bigger doesn't mean that it will use those bytes for routing. Hence it will route to the IPv4 address. Hence if we send to a.b.c.d.8.8.8.8, it will actually get sent to 8.8.8.8. IPv4+ packets wrapped in IPv4 is just 6in4. And all the handwaving is exactly that. It doesn't solve the actual problems that OP claims, e.g. being able to keep existing scripts and everything just works. If anything it makes those systems far more fraught. IPv6 does allow an admin to keep all those scripts for IPv4 and have them still just work. If anything, what this whole thing shows is that many network admins don't know what the fuck they are doing and are relying on existing scripts and cargo culting.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

Please look at the structure of an IP header. Note the "options and padding" section. Also SECTIONS of the internet (that is, routers) can have IPV4+ packets wrapped in IPV4 packets that will transmit them through "IPV4-old" only branches. We pretend like the major routing backbones aren't known and fairly set in stone, and that routers don't know about each other. Yeah, his approach doesn't fix the Comcast-doesn't support-IPV6 and is stuck in old IPV4. But those places are using NAT of their own. If we have all these cgnats and other address translations happening, well shit how is that different that the IPv4 wrapping ipv4+ and other things. Also, oh yes please give me more fucking ports. IPv6 keeping the same number of ports is stupid. Please give me 64 bits of ports. Ok, I'll take 32. If you use 10.44321 for a port number these days, well I have no sympathy for you. As for /24, clearly that will mean "IPV4 /24", and whatever new protocol will use some other convention like /000024. But /24 maps to a bit mask. You just interpret the bit mask differently. Yes I am handwaving a ton of stuff. A ton. But ipv6 basically said "fuck you our way or the highway" and here we are. At this point, maybe we need a superprotocol ipv8 that will wrap the ipv6 address space, the old ipv4 address space, into an even bigger address space. Get the router vendors and designers back in the room.

Dagger2 4y ago
You should learn a bit about v6 before criticizing it for not doing things that it is doing. You're basically reinventing 6to4. > Also, oh yes please give me more fucking ports. IPv6 keeping the same number of ports is stupid. IP doesn't have ports.
lowbloodsugar 4y ago
I don't think you are refuting my claims. If you put the extra 4 bytes of address at the end of the header, telling the legacy software that the header is now bigger doesn't mean that it will use those bytes for routing. Hence it will route to the IPv4 address. Hence if we send to a.b.c.d.8.8.8.8, it will actually get sent to 8.8.8.8. IPv4+ packets wrapped in IPv4 is just 6in4. And all the handwaving is exactly that. It doesn't solve the actual problems that OP claims, e.g. being able to keep existing scripts and everything just works. If anything it makes those systems far more fraught. IPv6 does allow an admin to keep all those scripts for IPv4 and have them still just work. If anything, what this whole thing shows is that many network admins don't know what the fuck they are doing and are relying on existing scripts and cargo culting.