41–50 of 132 posts
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…
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.
That's... cute. But not breaking anything, so, huh. Not bad.
They have an even crazier feature that rewrites IPv6 source addresses as random but unique IPv4 addresses for software that can't deal with that: https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-to-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And yet I still have /127, /126, /120 and /112 IPv6 subnets running on my network. Just because the IETF says SLAAC or bust doesn't mean it's true.
I take your point though - it certainly is theoretically (and in practice) possible to doing something other than a /64 - I've just never seen it in the wild.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's... cute. But not breaking anything, so, huh. Not bad.
essentially because of X-Forwarded-For They have an even crazier feature that rewrites IPv6 source addresses as random but unique IPv4 addresses for software that can't deal with that: https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-to-...
Clearly the IPv6 space doesn't compress 1-1 into the IPv4 space but this gives you way to work with the top 64 bits of the IPv6 address and then feed it into your anti-abuse system. If your abuse system works probabilistically then this isn't too problematic as this becomes just another signal. And IPv4-based systems already deal with multiple people behind the same IP because of NAT.
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.
We had a strange case recently...some of our remote staff were unable to connect to our NY VPN from SC. After tracing we found their ISP started using IPV6. Anyways, after we made changes...within a few hours the isp went back to IPv4.
Edit - 19 years to switch is a long time...old as the modern internet. Don't fix it if it ain't broken :)
The IPv6 address space covers the IPv4 address space already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Representation
> During the transition of the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6, it is typical to operate in a mixed addressing environment. For such use cases, a special notation has been introduced, which expresses IPv4-mapped and IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses by writing the least-significant 32 bits of an address in the familiar IPv4 dot-decimal notation, whereas all preceding ones are written in IPv6 format. For example, the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address ::ffff:c000:0280 is written as ::ffff:192.0.2.128, thus expressing clearly the original IPv4 address that was mapped to IPv6.
That needs some sort of gateway to work, but I'm assuming that that is the kind of thing your ISP would do for you.
And if you have to convert each IPv4 only host to an IPv10 host to use it, why not convert it to dual stack IPv4/IPv6 instead?
https://twitter.com/The_Road_Series/status/86814034617735577... This doesn't look good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes: "IPv10 allows hosts from two IP versions (IPv4 and IPv6) to be able to communicate, and this can be accomplished by having an IPv10 packet containing a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the same IP packet header."
engineers have an obscure way of naming things.
The IETF barking out other suggestions is just a distraction.