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

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: IPv10

#71

Post by leni536 »

stephen_g wrote: post #52
whatidonteven wrote: post #41

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!

Well, the idea is obviously flawed, but I don't think the author meant geostationary orbits.

Re: IPv10

#72

Post by cesarb »

ghshephard wrote: post #43
oarsinsync wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Genuinely curious - Why? We were considering doing so at one point for PtP links (equiv to a /30 or a /31 if you area really bleeding edge) - but then decided that there wasn't any reason to not just use /64s everywhere. 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.

I have heard of one good reason: with a /64, someone sending packets to random addresses within that /64 will fill up the neighbor cache, while with a smaller network like a /126, that can't happen.

Re: IPv10

#74

Post by philjohn »

oliwarner wrote: post #50

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.

The UK is pretty much there on IPV6 - BT (and by extension anyone who uses BT's network, so, everyone except Virgin Cable and Kingston Communications in Hull) now offers native IPV6 - you get delegated a /56 (albeit a dynamic /56 allocation for most).

The tricky part is router support - BT's own equipment supports it for the most part (Only the Smart Hub and Home Hub 5), but third party routers can be difficult - TPLink still only support /64 prefixes on their current firmware, and their firewall doesn't work properly when using their beta firmware that supports /56 prefixes.

So - the infrastructure is there, but support is variable.

Re: IPv10

#75

Post by codesnik »

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…

something like this was used in MIDI protocol

Re: IPv10

#76

Post by thechao »

stephen_g wrote: post #55
oliwarner wrote: post #50

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.

Don't worry, this is just a random submission from someone who also came up with the 'new' idea of accessing the Internet through satellites this year... (Posted above - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00 ) 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).

Just to be clear: the satellites in his network are plugged in. That's novel AF.

Re: IPv10

#77

Post by walshemj »

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…

Because ipv6 was designed with not much thought to migration and interworking with ipv4

Re: IPv10

#78

Post by philjohn »

pilif wrote: post #64
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.

Current recommendation is actually for a /56.

Re: IPv10

#79

Post by topranks »

oliwarner wrote: post #50

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.

From where I'm standing the big problem is enterprises not moving.

Most big ISPs run IPv6, and many provide IPv6 to their end customers. In the US Google see 35% of connections coming in to them over IPv6.

But convincing the average small-medium enterprise to enable it on their routers (which isn't automatic as is the case with home connections,) is proving difficult.

Re: IPv10

#80

Post by philjohn »

vbezhenar wrote: post #65
matthewmacleod wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Current recommendations is end users of ISP's should get a /56
Post reply on HN