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

61–70 of 132 posts

Re: IPv10

#61

Post by stephen_g »

bipson wrote: post #58

This is guy is something different (not that it would make his ideas worth any less, more on that later). 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…

> What is wrong with the current approach?

He seems to actually be completly unaware that satellite internet exists at all... (Judging from the second and third points of the introduction).

Who knows what's going on though - maybe he's just young and inexperienced? This is exactly the kind of thing I might have done as a 13 year old if I had stumbled on the IETF...

Re: IPv10

#63

Post by __s »

vog wrote: post #30
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…

Libraries at least should have mechanisms to release 1.2.4 & yank 1.2.3 from whichever package repos they're on. Package repos generally won't allow pushing an update to a version without version bump

Re: IPv10

#64

Post by pilif »

cm2187 wrote: post #51

One area where I am not keen to see IPv6 spreading is SMTP traffic. IP reputation while not perfect is still a useful layer of lipstick on the SMTP pig. 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.

> IP reputation while not perfect is still a useful layer of lipstick on the SMTP pig.

just use the prefix for reputation. You can assume that each user will have received a /48. Yes. There are some ISPs out there handing out /64's or even a /128, so it might be somewhat too broad, but blacklisting a the whole /48 and then white-listing on (rare) demand is probably the way to go.

Re: IPv10

#65

Post by vbezhenar »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #24
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.

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.

End users should receive /64 subnet and servers should receive /48 subnet. Given that many users might want to run some servers, it's just 65536 times more than IPv4. Good enough, but not future proof enough if you ask me.

Re: IPv10

#66

Post by bhouston »

jabl wrote: post #59
stephen_g wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Crank-o'meter goes to eleven! But yeah, if it's this easy to submit drafts to IETF, how come they haven't drowned in spam already?

He has a lot of other proposals as well: http://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.ca/2017/03/khaled-rout...

Re: IPv10

#67

Post by WhoooItsMe »

icebraining wrote: post #40
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…

Your method is essentially how UTF-8 works. I think the problem is implementing that efficiently in hardware, which is needed for routers.

Not quite, UTF-8 encodes the length of the sequence in the first byte, instead of marking the end, this makes more sense because it is easier to detect broken input. 1110xxxx 10xxxxxx 0xxxxxxx obviously has a byte missing and is broken, but [1]xxxxxxx [0]xxxxxxx could have any number of bytes missing an would just yield the wrong value.

Re: IPv10

#68

Post by cesarb »

whatidonteven wrote: post #41
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…

Also from the same author: Satellite Internet [0] [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00

What.

Also, interesting snippet near the end of that draft: "Each satellite is connected to an earth station which is connected to the Internet core network on earth." He thinks there's a single "Internet core network" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InternetIncorpora...)? No wonder he thinks it would be easy to forklift upgrade the whole Internet to his new protocol...

Re: IPv10

#69

Post by mtgx »

nickcw wrote: post #46

Not sure I understand why this is necessary... 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…

Some good not-easy-to-screw-up and default security and privacy features at the IP level would be nice to have in a new IP protocol.
Post reply on HN