4 ms·

I'm a little confused as to what you're suggesting here. The best interpretation I can find is that you think IP will be replaced by a mish-mash of different ne

by chc 13y ago

I'm a little confused as to what you're suggesting here. The best interpretation I can find is that you think IP will be replaced by a mish-mash of different network operators' ad hoc standards. But that hardly seems like something to hope for.

wmf 13y ago
Some have suggested that instead of IPv6, everything will be tunneled over HTTP (or perhaps WebSocket or WebRTC) over multiple layers of IPv4 NAT.
- dasil003 13y ago
  That could be the natural evolution of things, until at some point in the future one by one the CEOs of the world are breaking their touch screens in half out of frustration, "why is the network so fucking slow and unreliable?" Then the CTO casually mentions the darknet (ie. IPv6) that all the hardcore tech geeks are using for high performance network apps. In other words, IPv6 adoption will accelerate by orders of magnitude once the real pain of IPv4 address exhaustion starts to be felt.
tptacek 13y ago
I think network operators should have about as much say in what service models Internet protocols should support as the telephone companies do about what apps run on Android and iOS. I think large open source projects (like BitTorrent) and startups should start thinking about applications that build their own connectivity layer on top of IP, and that don't assume any two nodes will have direct IP connectivity. Obviously, this is already true of the Internet we use today, because a huge percentage of hosts don't expose direct connectivity for reasons of security (not addressing scarcity --- there are companies sitting on /16s that static-address every desktop, but allow none of them direct Internet connectivity). If you believe TorrentFreak, BitTorrent accounts for double digit percentage points of all Internet traffic. BitTorrent is an overlay design (albeit not one that reliably avoids the need for direct point-to-point connectivity, unlike the Gnutella overlay). We already know designs like this are tenable. I'm saying we should explore them further as alternatives to an Internet design controlled by giant telecoms.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Nobody objects to building layers on top of TCP/IP. We've been doing that forever. I think we are all very confused by the idea that a layer built on top of TCP/IP will replace TCP/IP? It just doesn't make sense.
  - msnodderly 13y ago
    He's saying it will replace the need to replace IPv4 with IPv6, not that it will replace TCP/IP.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Actually, I'm saying we should replace IP, in the same way that IP "replaced" X.25 (if you want to call Frame Relay the successor X.25) by relegating it to a layer 2 connectivity technology. I'm saying it would be great if all web pages were delivered over an overlay protocol running on top of some TCP friendly transport provided by an overlay; a "peer to peer" routing system like Skype. The simplest way to describe the architecture I'm talking about is, "what if you made IRC a modern, fully routed binary connectivity fabric, then tunnelled the Internet over it?"
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        TCP/IP is peer to peer, and IRC is built on top of TCP/IP. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your proposal, but it seems like what you want to do is what we already have.
        tptacek 13y ago
        Yes, you're misunderstanding, because I am not being clear. I'm not saying we get rid of IP (I'm not talking about TCP at all, for what it's worth). I'm saying, we stop trying to make IP better, accept it for what it is, and building something better ON TOP OF IT.
        13y ago

by chc 13y ago

wmf 13y ago

Some have suggested that instead of IPv6, everything will be tunneled over HTTP (or perhaps WebSocket or WebRTC) over multiple layers of IPv4 NAT.

dasil003 13y ago
That could be the natural evolution of things, until at some point in the future one by one the CEOs of the world are breaking their touch screens in half out of frustration, "why is the network so fucking slow and unreliable?" Then the CTO casually mentions the darknet (ie. IPv6) that all the hardcore tech geeks are using for high performance network apps. In other words, IPv6 adoption will accelerate by orders of magnitude once the real pain of IPv4 address exhaustion starts to be felt.

tptacek 13y ago

I think network operators should have about as much say in what service models Internet protocols should support as the telephone companies do about what apps run on Android and iOS. I think large open source projects (like BitTorrent) and startups should start thinking about applications that build their own connectivity layer on top of IP, and that don't assume any two nodes will have direct IP connectivity. Obviously, this is already true of the Internet we use today, because a huge percentage of hosts don't expose direct connectivity for reasons of security (not addressing scarcity --- there are companies sitting on /16s that static-address every desktop, but allow none of them direct Internet connectivity). If you believe TorrentFreak, BitTorrent accounts for double digit percentage points of all Internet traffic. BitTorrent is an overlay design (albeit not one that reliably avoids the need for direct point-to-point connectivity, unlike the Gnutella overlay). We already know designs like this are tenable. I'm saying we should explore them further as alternatives to an Internet design controlled by giant telecoms.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Nobody objects to building layers on top of TCP/IP. We've been doing that forever. I think we are all very confused by the idea that a layer built on top of TCP/IP will replace TCP/IP? It just doesn't make sense.
- msnodderly 13y ago
  He's saying it will replace the need to replace IPv4 with IPv6, not that it will replace TCP/IP.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Actually, I'm saying we should replace IP, in the same way that IP "replaced" X.25 (if you want to call Frame Relay the successor X.25) by relegating it to a layer 2 connectivity technology. I'm saying it would be great if all web pages were delivered over an overlay protocol running on top of some TCP friendly transport provided by an overlay; a "peer to peer" routing system like Skype. The simplest way to describe the architecture I'm talking about is, "what if you made IRC a modern, fully routed binary connectivity fabric, then tunnelled the Internet over it?"
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      TCP/IP is peer to peer, and IRC is built on top of TCP/IP. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your proposal, but it seems like what you want to do is what we already have.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Yes, you're misunderstanding, because I am not being clear. I'm not saying we get rid of IP (I'm not talking about TCP at all, for what it's worth). I'm saying, we stop trying to make IP better, accept it for what it is, and building something better ON TOP OF IT.
        13y ago