91–100 of 132 posts
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?
Lots of crazy things get submitted, and never looked at again. In order for drafts to stay alive they need to be updated with comments every 6 months. Sometimes they lead to things, and sometimes they don't. Usually some IETF working group has to be interested for a draft to go from a draft to an actual RFC.
You can see the status of this draft here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/89166/
You can find a list of current drafts here: https://www.ietf.org/download/id-abstract.txt
Given the lack of comments on the draft, and the fact its not actually attached to an IETF working group, its fairly safe to say that this isn't actually going to become a real protocol anytime soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea here is to have to update the end points only, not having to upgrade the expensive infrastructure in between, which was the reason IPv6 was so slow to be adopted in the first place.
I don't think that's possible. The routers are the ones that need to decode the IPv10 packet, see if it contains an IPv4 or IPv6 destination and route accordingly. From my reading of the RFC that means all routers, not just the customer appliances. It kinda feels like IPv6 all over again. > That means, if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv4 address in the destination address field, the router should use the IP…
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 - TPL…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I have the same understanding here. It allows those who switch to IPv6 easily communicate with IPv4 (backward compatibility?)...a bit confusing though since this is handled at router level. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
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.
In case folks haven't been involved in the IETF RFC process before, even though this is hosted on IETF.org this is just a ID (Internet Draft). They can be submitted by literally anyone. The tool to do so is here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ Lots of crazy things get submitted, and never looked at again. In order for drafts to stay alive they need to be updated with comments every 6 months. Sometimes they lead…