6 ms·
It’s not going to happen. Plenty of routers and other equipment are hardcoded to not route to those addresses. Any time spent rectifying this is time wasted on
by sgjohnson 3y ago
It’s not going to happen. Plenty of routers and other equipment are hardcoded to not route to those addresses. Any time spent rectifying this is time wasted on just adopting IPv6.
Ping 240.whatever.whatever.whatever from Windows. You just can’t. General failure.
And Windows is not the exception here.
They can lobby all they want, all the effort is going to be in vain. Imagine having to debug a problem where your services are sitting on 240.0.0.0/4, but some customers have routers that just drop the packets to that destination. It’d be a nightmare and “get better networking gear” might not even be a solution, because their ISPs routers could also be doing that.
This proposal is provably worse than just adopting IPv6, because when IPv6 works, it just works. This? This would fragment the IPv4 internet with undefined behaviour.
If they really want more v4 space, they should advocate for yoinking the v4 space that e.g. the DoD, Daimler, Ford or Apple doesn’t use. And they have a lot of v4 space. But that’s also not going to happen, and one of the reasons why not would be similar. A lot of people are actually squatting on DoD space in their internal networks if they run out of 10/8.
- dheera 3y ago[flagged]
- growse 3y ago> Make them all inter-compatible and backward-compatible by modifying the packet structure to accept a variable length address. "Simply draw the rest of the Owl".
- Workaccount2 3y agoLike clockwork this comment shows up...
- Macha 3y agoOften it's even the same users, as if all the reasons it wouldn't work were't explained to them the last times they reflexively suggested it at the mention of IPv6: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39100317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39100317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36996003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36996003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047061 ...
- Ekaros 3y agoCan you explain exactly how a IPv4 host would send packet to 1.2.4.5.6. What fields inside a fixed IP packet it would set to achieve such?
- mike256 3y agoAnd a real IPv6 (128 bit) address would look like 164.32.74.105.164.32.74.105.164.32.74.105.164.32.74.105
- JackSlateur 3y agoBy that logic, ipv6 would be 1.2.3.4.1.2.3.4.1.2.3.4.1.2.3.4 Easy to remember, indeed
- Macha 3y agoAddress with patterns are indeed easy to remember, see how easy 1:2:3:4:: is to remember. So all we have to do is allocate everyone an artisanally crafted address with easy to remember patterns /s
- exe34 3y agoHave you heard of domain names? They can be very memorable!
- dheera 3y ago- 8.8.8.8 is IPv4 google DNS - What is IPv6 google DNS? Hell if I can remember it. 2001:4680:something? Guess which one is going into the DNS config of a new machine that I have to bring up and am forced to deliver results on short notice.
- growse 3y agoIt's Google's prefix (`2001:4860:4860`) with `8888` and `8844` on the end. If you can't remember that, the problem's not the protocol.
- JackSlateur 3y agoAnd why on earth would you remember 8.8.8.8 in the first place ? For almost all the thing, I use DNS For DNS resolvers, I use root servers Never shall I use 8.8.8.8 : why would I ..
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- p1mrx 3y agoYou post a strawman IPv6 address to HN every month or so. Why not take a minute to learn what a real address looks like? For example, 2eff:ff:a0ee::/54 is a prefix and 2eff:ff:a0ee::dead:beef is an address within that prefix. It is invalid for "::" to appear more than once, as that would be ambiguous.
- dheera 3y agoBecause nobody has fixed the bad UX yet, I'm still on IPv4, and like 5 million other people, have no incentive to move to IPv6 until the consortium of PMs of IPv6 do some user research (e.g. read HN) and work together to make the UX better or invent a better successor that people actually want to use. They're all wondering why IPv6 adoption is so slow, I'm telling them right here plain and simple.
- p1mrx 3y agoYou're trying to close the door after the horse has left the barn and started a worldwide colony of horsepeople. IPv6 isn't perfect, but it's not really practical to change the fundamentals of a 25 year old protocol.
- kees99 3y ago> problem where your services are sitting on 240.0.0.0/4, but some customers have routers that just drop the packets to that destination. On the other hand, as an ISP, you can pull some of those addresses for your CGNAT's external address pool. Your customers' gear will never see those. Server side will, though. But then, troubleshooting cloud/server front-end to reliably let those through sounds like a more doable chore?
- tjoff 3y agoYou can still connect to other non-nated individuals that might not expect that.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> On the other hand, as an ISP, you can pull some of those addresses for your CGNAT's external address pool. You're right but ugh, CGNAT. We just had fiber deployed here (yay!) and then I got assigned an ISP that has me behind CGNAT. The list of things that can make icky Spectrum better than fiber (for me) is super short, but CGNAT in the 1 or 2 spot.
- p1mrx 3y agoCGNAT will become common for residential IPv4, because math. It's more reasonable to expect ISPs to provide native IPv6 alongside CGNAT, than avoid CGNAT entirely.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> It's more reasonable to expect ISPs to provide native IPv6 alongside CGNAT, than avoid CGNAT entirely. You'd think so but of our fiber ISPs, 0 of 8 support IPv6 or have plans to do so - inc the NATty ones.
- p1mrx 3y agoWell, expectations do not always match reality. I suggest that you complain about their lack of IPv6, and encourage other customers to do the same.
- kees99 3y ago...and about that part: > advocate for yoinking the v4 space that e.g. the DoD, Daimler, Ford or Apple doesn’t use Isn't it a travesty that owning a sizeable chunk of limited-supply IP addresses doesn't cost much, but exact same number of (nearly-)unlimited-supply domains does cost dearly per-domain to own? We don't hear horror stories how somebody is hoarding 16 millions .com domains, right? Too expensive to do so.
- Ekaros 3y agoWe do. With gTLDs they can hoard all the domains under there... And price them how they like. Then again, we can generate nearly infinite amount of gTLDs so it is not too big deal.
- dtaht 3y agoI am bugged that the BEAD programs do not seem to grok that we are indeed out of IPv4 space, and that the federal government is sitting on 10? 11 idle /8s.
- yardstick 3y agoAll OpenWRT based routers have supported it for a very long time now. Also note the proposal is for 240/4 to be added to the RFC1918 list, not to be globally routable. I’ve been using 240/4 successfully in internal networks for over a decade now. The only devices I’ve had problems with are Windows. So for a quick win, Windows just needs to drop special checks they do for 240/4. I recall the 240/4 idea being floated at least 5-10 years ago. If Windows was changed to allow it at that point, today hardly anyone would be complaining that Ciscos or Junipers or other core routers don’t support it. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
- RockRobotRock 3y agoWhy do we need more RFC1918 addresses? What's wrong with 10.0.0.0/8?
- stuff4ben 3y agoSome larger companies need it. I say if their equipment supports it and it's currently unused globally, then let it work internally.
- RockRobotRock 3y agoFair enough.
- christopherh1 3y agoThis proposal is not regarding repurposing 240/4 as RFC1918 space. It is regarding reclassifying it as Unicast space. I would recommend reading the article.
- RockRobotRock 3y agoMy bad. I was replying to the parent comment but you're right that I should have read the article.
- sgjohnson 3y ago
- bigfatfrock 3y agoAnd here I was excited, me, as a common person, could possibly buy a block of ipv4. Dream crusher.
- dtaht 3y agoI wish I had enough clout - as jon postel did - to merely declare I was the authority on 255/8 and was selling /24s at an auction price to anyone that was willing to route it. I´d use the money to support open source, and to help fund the rest of the ipv6 transition. And buy myself a nice sailboat to sail around in whilst I de-bufferbloated the rest of the networks of the world.
- dtaht 3y ago240/4 for windows is a patch tuesday away.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]