51–60 of 132 posts
One area where I am keen to see IPv6 spreading is IoT. I don't know if we can ever secure those things, but it will certainly make scanning the IP address space for vulnerable devices impractical.
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…
Also from the same author: Satellite Internet [0] [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00
"Each satellite holds routers connected to other routers on other satellites using fiber optic cables"
I have a better solution to the IPv4 problem. It will just take Google to put "Websites that provide IPv6 traffic routing will be prioritized on search results" in their search ranking rules – Bam! Problem solved. It seems to have worked with SSL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Real IPv6 deployment is held up because of the 50-100 biggest ISPs in North America and Europe. Get them to start taking this seriously and everything else falls into line over night. The IETF barking out other suggestions is just a distraction.
It's not going to be seriously considered (it doesn't make sense anyway - upgrading to this protocol would be the same effort as upgrading to IPv6 - it's entirely pointless).
https://twitter.com/The_Road_Series/status/86814034617735577... This doesn't look good.
Wow, is this some kind of joke? This is the guy who created this new protocol? Hopefully, it's as good as dead now.
Link to said protocol with pretty pictures
https://twitter.com/The_Road_Series/status/86814034617735577... This doesn't look good.
Wow, is this some kind of joke? This is the guy who created this new protocol? Hopefully, it's as good as dead now.
Some of his recent efforts:
Satellite Internet [0] (kudos whatidonteven) - I don't think he thought this one through. What is wrong with the current approach? Should we really erect wires in outer space?
He is currently kind of harassing the IETF via mailing lists about IPv10, threatening "If the ideas explained on these drafts will be used, discussed or published by the ietf, legal actions will be taken." [1] - not really how the IETF works.
The version number as "ingenious" 4+6 is annoying, IMO. That's not how version numbers work?
His drawing on his his very own routing protocol - KRP - are also something [2]. Although the quality of his drawings has nothing to do with his ideas per se, it seems he rushed it together in an afternoon.
I don't want to say that he is overestimating his own intelligence, rather that he is underestimating the efforts, hard work and intelligence of everyone else working in this field mostly professionally. His proposals can not easily be judged, because they dismiss almost everything that others have done previously. Why should so many smart people have missed these (obvious/simple) solutions? We are where we are for a reason. You need a good chain of arguments to "dismiss" the current state of the art.
[0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00
[1] http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/RE-IPv10-KRP-and-RRP-IDs-Remova...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also from the same author: Satellite Internet [0] [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00
I'm lost for words. How does somebody get to the point of submitting a draft to the IETF, seemingly believing this is a new idea in 2017? Surely this must be trolling? "Each satellite holds routers connected to other routers on other satellites using fiber optic cables" You'd need 265,000 km (164,600 miles) of fibre to loop around the geostationary arc!
But yeah, if it's this easy to submit drafts to IETF, how come they haven't drowned in spam already?