3 ms·

Can you elaborate? The first I assume is “take off and nuke the site from orbit”, per Aliens (1986). What are you advocating for with IPv6? Increasing the en

Can you elaborate? The first I assume is “take off and nuke the site from orbit”, per Aliens (1986). What are you advocating for with IPv6? Increasing the enumeration space for IP addresses from 32 bits to /64 prefixes?

ggm 2y ago
I'm really just advocating for a drop in replacement. You wouldn't redeploy the addressing architecture you have, instead disrupt the surface the salt gets into. If you did a drop in why not go the whole hog and make it a 6 fabric?
- daneel_w 2y ago
  But, a drop-in replacement of what? SS7? Diameter? Chinese cellular base stations from Huawei etc.? The collective telco IT infra and the shoddy security practices (or lack thereof)?
  - ggm 2y ago
    "Yes"
- immibis 2y ago
  The addressing architecture isn't the problem though? But if you think it is, I encourage you to run Yggdrasil.
  - ggm 2y ago
    No, it's true the addressing architecture isn't the problem. The uncertainty fear and doubt over all the deployed equipment is the problem. Hence "take off and nuke it from orbit" -do a complete replacement. IFF you buy that, why would you replace like (v4) with like? Why not replace with auto addressed self deploying v6 (for instance) which some people have been advocating for at scale, rather than a bundle of assumptions in dhcpv6 static assignment? Sure a lot of things would be static, but you could simplify the NMS burdens massively and reduce your routing complexity in the IGP. It's not a totally silly suggestion and it's not totally sensible either. Light hearted. I doubt any exec in any telco outside of Jio or maybe Comcast would go there. Amongst other things, they'd destroy a lot of capital value doing the Ripley. Well.. the liberated v4 sell replaces some of that until the price crashes..