Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPv10

tools.ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 132 posts

Re: IPv10

#11

Post by drinchev »

Excerpt :

    - That means, if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv4
      address in the destination address field, the router
      should use the IPv4 routing table to make a routing
      decision, and if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv6
      address in the destination address field, the router should
      use the IPv6 routing table to make a routing decision.

    - All Internet connected hosts must be IPv10 hosts to be
      able to communicate regardless the used IP version,
      and the IPv10 deployment process can be accomplished
      by ALL technology companies developing OSs for hosts
      networking and security devices.
Earlier in the RFC ( reasoning on IPv6 support ) :

    ... also, not all enterprises
    devices support IPv6 and also many people are afraid of the service
    outage that can be caused due to this migration.
If migrating to IPv10 requires the migration of the same infrastructure, what's the point of having it?

Re: IPv10

#12

Post by jrimbault »

joeblau wrote: post #4
bertolo1988 wrote: post #2

Why not IPv16 and fix the problem for ever?

Will it fix it? This seems like a scaling issue we're going to have to deal with forever.

IPv6 has a 2^128 address pool.

edit: theoretically, we'll only ever use a fraction of that, both by design and because that's a huge number

Re: IPv10

#15

Post by baq »

had to double check the date to see if it's not an April 1st. it isn't.

wow.

Re: IPv10

#16

Post by roblabla »

drinchev wrote: post #11

Excerpt : - That means, if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv4 address in the destination address field, the router should use the IPv4 routing table to make a routing decision, and if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv6 address in the destination address field, the router should use the IPv6 routing table to make a routing decision. - All Internet connected hosts must be IPv10 hosts to be able to commu…

I'm pondering on this. I think the idea is to allow ipv6-only users to connect to ipv4-only users -- thus making the IPv6 migration "easier" for, e.g., ISPs that are deploying ipv6-only networks (especially on mobile). But the RFC doesn't really mention that anywhere.

I might be missing something though.

Re: IPv10

#17

Post by CodeWriter23 »

As a side note, I was very confused about IPv6 addresses popping up in my server logs when I knew it only had IPv4 provisioned. Turns out CloudFlare had automatically published AAAA records for my domain and was v6-to-v4 proxying my inbound HTTP/HTTPS traffic. For free! Just another reason to love CloudFlare.

Re: IPv10

#19

Post by yorwba »

roblabla wrote: post #16
drinchev wrote: post #11

Excerpt : - That means, if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv4 address in the destination address field, the router should use the IPv4 routing table to make a routing decision, and if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv6 address in the destination address field, the router should use the IPv6 routing table to make a routing decision. - All Internet connected hosts must be IPv10 hosts to be able to commu…

I'm pondering on this. I think the idea is to allow ipv6-only users to connect to ipv4-only users -- thus making the IPv6 migration "easier" for, e.g., ISPs that are deploying ipv6-only networks (especially on mobile). But the RFC doesn't really mention that anywhere. I might be missing something though.

The ipv4-only users still need a way to specify an ipv6 address to talk to ipv6-only users. This RFC seems to suggest that they should just send an ipv10 packet. But then they wouldn't be ipv4-only anymore, and might as well adopt ipv6.

Re: IPv10

#20

Post by nightcracker »

adtac wrote: post #10

Mildly off-topic, but I've always wondered about having a non-fixed length address scheme: if there are 64 bits in the address, let the first 8 bits (64/8 = 8) be 1 and the 9th bit be 0. This way we encode the length of the address. After that, every bit is available for use (all 64 - 9 = 55 bits). Suddenly want to increase the domain from 2^55 to something much higher? Use a 15-byte address where the first 15 bits a…

> What's the drawback if we use something like this? Routing troubles? Speed?

This problem is not one of technical difficulties. There are many protocols that could be designed that are future-proof, efficient, etc.

The issue is entirely social. Everyone needs to use the same protocol(s), so there's a HEAVY emphasis on 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Post reply on HN