I have GigaBit internet from AT&T. Speeds have been terrible and pings were like 130ms. I disabled IPv6 on my laptop and things improved. I disabled IPv6 on my router and it improved even more.
Do we really need IPv10?
IPv10
81–90 of 132 posts
Re: IPv10
#82Earlier 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.
Of course this assumes we don't assign half of the address space to Apple, Facebook, Google and their friends, or something silly like that, like it was done with IPv4 (with the equivalent "friends" at the time).
I read in one of the IPv6 RFCs (don't recall which one at the moment), that initially only 1/8 of the possible address space will be allocated. If for some reason that space is filled up, there's still another 7/8 which can be allocated with a more conservative policy.
Re: IPv10
#83One 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.
In contrast I look forward to not having my 20 year old domain (never used for commercial emails and with a volume of around 1 outgoing message per day) blocked because a completely different server that my ISP used has a client who started spamming.
Google/Microsoft do this.
Re: IPv10
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
That's a horrible idea. What if I can't upgrade to 1.2.4?
Re: IPv10
#85This 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…
In other words: "this entire HN submission is spam".
Re: IPv10
#86Why not IPv16 and fix the problem for ever?
> fix the problem forever Situation: There are 14 competing standards "14?! Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases." "Yeah!" Situation: There are 15 competing standards Src: https://xkcd.com/927/
If you're getting downvoted and can't work out why, that XKCD is massively overused and shoehorned into conversations that have no bearing on what's being discussed.
The whole '15 competing standards' meme only really makes sense when there are 15 competing standards bodies. In the case of IP addresses, there is only one standards body, the IETF. There is one legacy standard (IPv4), one new standard (IPv6), and the only question is how best to ease the transition between the two. I see no problem if that transition relies on an interim protocol.
Re: IPv10
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Hex.pm (for Erlang/Elixir packages) allows you to re-publish the same version multiple times as long as it's within a set window of time after the first upload.
Re: IPv10
#88Not 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
And migrating is all cost no benefit. And the problems ipv6 was intended to solve have long since been addressed better by other means (eg NAT).
Re: IPv10
#89The ASCII Graphics in RFPs are getting more advanced these days
Re: IPv10
#90Mildly 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…
This is called a VLQ, btw. Variable Length Qunatity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-length_quantity