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

101–110 of 132 posts

Re: IPv10

#101

Post by snuxoll »

topranks wrote: post #79
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.

> 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.

We're setting up a new SQL Server cluster, we literally disabled IPv6 in Windows because "we don't use it" - meanwhile I have 6 separate /24's assigned to my team that are a pain in the butt to manage just to ensure I don't run out of addresses. My life would be so much easier if I just had a v6 /64 for dev/test and another /64 for staging and production.

Re: IPv10

#102

Post by corobo »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #86
corobo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Win some, lose some. In hindsight it was pretty shoehorned in.

Re: IPv10

#103

Post by peterwwillis »

ericfrederich wrote: post #81

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?

IPv6 enabled in your tcp/ip stack doesn't create latency. You weren't even using IPv6 - ping is IPv4 by default.

Re: IPv10

#104

Post by mindcrime »

snuxoll wrote: post #99
princekolt wrote: post #49

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.

Wake me when AWS, Azure or GCP have proper IPv6 support.

How do you define "proper IPv6 support"? AWS certainly has considerable support for IPv6 today:

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-ipv6-update-global-supp...

Re: IPv10

#105

Post by snuxoll »

mindcrime wrote: post #104
snuxoll wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wake me when AWS, Azure or GCP have proper IPv6 support.

How do you define "proper IPv6 support"? AWS certainly has considerable support for IPv6 today: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-ipv6-update-global-supp...

Wow, I never heard about this until now - it's about damned time! Now if Google and MS could step up to the plate we'd have a large chunk of services in a position ready to enable IPv6 support.

Re: IPv10

#106

Post by gvx »

bandrami wrote: post #84
__s wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It should always be possible to upgrade a patch level. How else would you get security updates?

Re: IPv10

#107

Post by peterwwillis »

jgrahamc wrote: post #44
lathiat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

essentially because of X-Forwarded-For They have an even crazier feature that rewrites IPv6 source addresses as random but unique IPv4 addresses for software that can't deal with that: https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-to-...

That feature isn't as nuts as you think. Clearly the IPv6 space doesn't compress 1-1 into the IPv4 space but this gives you way to work with the top 64 bits of the IPv6 address and then feed it into your anti-abuse system. If your abuse system works probabilistically then this isn't too problematic as this becomes just another signal. And IPv4-based systems already deal with multiple people behind the same IP because…

You have users who can already access a site using IPv4, but want to use IPv6, and you have an anti-abuse system that lacks support, so you decided to invent a new kind of NAT, rather than require the customer to just fix their anti-abuse system, which they'd need to do on other platforms anyway?

The feature isn't nuts, but the rationale seems so.

Re: IPv10

#108

Post by Hikikomori »

rurban wrote: post #93
daenney wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Problem was mandatory multicast support for IPv6 for the last decades, which requires a lot of memory upgrades to the routers, which nobody cares, because they rather invest in other things than memory upgrades to their routers. Why should they support better TV and Youtube streaming might be their reasoning.

Where did you get this information from? Core internet routers do not really get "memory upgrades" at all (like it's a stick of ram you can replace, it's not), especially for multicast routing requirements.

Re: IPv10

#109

Post by oarsinsync »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #86
corobo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

If only we didn't have multiple competing transitional mechanisms defined as standards already.
Post reply on HN