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

21–30 of 132 posts

Re: IPv10

#21

Post by DiThi »

yorwba wrote: post #19
roblabla wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the idea here is to have to update the end points only, not having to upgrade the expensive infrastructure in between, which was the reason IPv6 was so slow to be adopted in the first place.

Re: IPv10

#22

Post by ghshephard »

jrimbault wrote: post #12
joeblau wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, because there is no equivalent to CIDR with IPv6, what you really need to focus on is the 2^64 networks available. Still a big number.

Re: IPv10

#23

Post by dolftax »

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…

The problem with IPv6 or IPv10 is same. Adoption. IPv10 might reduce friction because of compatibility reasons.

Re: IPv10

#24

Post by matthewmacleod »

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.

You may be underestimating how many IPv6 addresses there are! 2^128 is huge. Like, if we assigned one trillion new addresses every second since the birth of the universe, we’d still have enough left over to do the same in another 800 million parallel universes. Truly astronomical numbers.

Obviously not all of these addresses will be used; in practice we aren’t going to run out any time soon.

Re: IPv10

#25

Post by lifthrasiir »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #6

Why V10. Because 4+6?

Not only because it is a proposed bridging solution between IPv4 and IPv6, the "version number" of IP is actually somewhat more like an identifier for subprotocols. There is the list [1] of all taken version numbers managed by IANA.

IPv4 is the version 4 because former versions of protocols (0 thru 3) are long obsolete; IPv6 is the version 6 because the version 5 was taken by another experimental protocol; and IPv10 ought to be the version 10 because the versions 6 thru 9 were used for proposed successors to IPv4 (and eventually the protocol of version 6 was chosen). I'm not very sure if other assignments were possible in the current standard process though (e.g. up to IPv14 would be available).

[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-num...

Re: IPv10

#27

Post by yorwba »

DiThi wrote: post #21
yorwba wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the idea here is to have to update the end points only, not having to upgrade the expensive infrastructure in between, which was the reason IPv6 was so slow to be adopted in the first place.

The expensive infrastructure needs to be taught about ipv10, unless it doesn't actually look at the packets. Maybe there are some that ignore the protocol version field and could be tricked into treating it like an ipv4 packet, but there's nothing in the RFC to suggest that's the plan.

Re: IPv10

#28

Post by svennek »

I am not sure about the base idea, but isn't the ipv10 (i.e. protocol number 10) going to cause problems?

Aren't hosts expected to choose the highest protocol number they understand? So basically this forever kills (protocol) ipv6 and replaces it with ipv6+ipv4, which is never going to fly (because the "underlying" ipv4 is sunsetting and hopefully gone within a decade)...

Re: IPv10

#29

Post by thinkMOAR »

Efforts to get ipv6 rolled out faster and easier are imho good. Though, not sure if this actually helps.

I am not a fan of using hardware/mac addresses in ip addresses, in my opinion its a big security/privacy issue. Tracking, hardware details leaking etc.

And somehow i think ipv10 will make the migration for some parties even less of a priority or less urge to 'finish' it. I think if they really want to 'promote' and accelerate IPv6 rollout... Facebook and Instagram should have ipv6 days only. E.g. one day in the week or month, you can only connect with facebook/instagram over ipv6; then you'll see how fast endusers will want to be on ipv6 (and once all endusers are dual stacked.. parties can slowly start disabling ipv4 all together). And then i assume the ipv4 only parties will make a bit of a hurry getting their ipv6 in order.

Re: IPv10

#30

Post by vog »

Derbasti wrote: post #14

> The first version of the Internet Protocol is IPv4. Version numbers are great!

I actually like their conservative approach with version numbers.

For what it's worth, in IPv4 time there were some experiments with a new IP variant, those got the version 5. You won't find these anywhere in today's networks, but just to be sure, the next official version got number 6.

The opposite is what we see in some programs and libraries: First, they publish version 1.2.2. Then version 1.2.3. But ooops, 1.2.3 had an issue. Well, let's just release a new tarball and label it 1.2.3 as well. Hopefully nobody noticed this. How big are the chances that somebody downloaded the broken package during the past 2 hours? (I guess using another number for the fixed release, such as 1.2.4, would have been too expensive. Or so.)

Post reply on HN