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

111–120 of 132 posts

Re: IPv10

#111

Post by anoother »

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…

His address is also interesting:

   The Road
   6th of October City, Giza
   Egypt

Re: IPv10

#112

Post by [deleted] »

jonawesomegreen wrote: post #92

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…

[deleted]

Re: IPv10

#113

Post by gvx »

joeblau wrote: post #38
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.

While you're right, it is huge. This mistake has been made in computing time and time again. You think you've got adequate scale for your solution but you didn't anticipate X which introduces new growth that out paces your design.

Assuming the internet has been growing exponentially since the beginning and will continue to do so indefinitely.

IPv4 has 32 bits and lasted us 34 years so far. Let's call it 32 years. Address space would need a nice and tidy 1 bit extra per year. That would mean IPv6 would last until around the year 2110.

But will the internet keep growing exponentially until then? How many people will even be alive by then? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow..., predictions used by the UN range from 7 to 18 billion people. Let's round it up to 20 billion people. How many IPv6 addresses could we give out to each person? According to https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%5E128+%2F+20*10%5E9, 1.7 * 10^28, which is a lot. But okay, we have a lot of computers per person and not all computers are associated with individuals. So what if we do something crazy, like give out IPv6 addresses to the (human) cells in everybody's body? https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.7+*+10%5E28+%2F+cell..., that would be about 1.7 * 10^14. What if we give each cell some IPv6 addresses per second (pretending all of our cells live for 80 years)? https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.7+*+10%5E14+%2F+(80+...

Here we land on 67 thousand addresses, per second, for each human cell in the bodies of 20 billion people, for the span of 80 years.

That's how many IPv6 addresses we'll need to use before we run out.

We have made this mistake before, but 128 bits really is a lot.

Re: IPv10

#114

Post by olau »

jonawesomegreen wrote: post #92

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…

Slight correction, you have provided the link to the submission processing status, here's the link to the draft itself:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-omar-ipv10/

Re: IPv10

#115

Post by ZenoArrow »

oarsinsync wrote: post #109
ZenoArrow wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're suggesting there are networking standards that compete with IPv4/IPv6? What are those standards?

Re: IPv10

#116

Post by mcguire »

anoother wrote: post #111
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…

His address is also interesting: The Road 6th of October City, Giza Egypt

Well, 6th of October City is a place. (https://goo.gl/maps/z141gu8cMYB2)

Re: IPv10

#118

Post by mcguire »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #115
oarsinsync wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're suggesting there are networking standards that compete with IPv4/IPv6? What are those standards?

There's like 4 (?) different IPv4/v6 integration systems. None of which worked the last time I fiddled with some of them.

Re: IPv10

#119

Post by ZenoArrow »

mcguire wrote: post #118
ZenoArrow wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're suggesting there are networking standards that compete with IPv4/IPv6? What are those standards?

There's like 4 (?) different IPv4/v6 integration systems. None of which worked the last time I fiddled with some of them.

Which would suggest there's room for an integration system that does work. In any case, the goal is a transition to IPv6, as long as the integration systems all share that goal there can be interoperability between them.

Re: IPv10

#120

Post by MertsA »

leni536 wrote: post #71
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!

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

Then it's much more flawed if it's for anything but geostationary orbits. The way it's written it sounds like he doesn't understand that geostationary satellites have to be high up in the equatorial plane as he mentions each satellite having a specific area.
Post reply on HN