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

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: IPv10

#121

Post by MertsA »

thechao wrote: post #76
stephen_g wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the funniest part is that fiber optics are irrelevant in space, you'd be better off just pointing a laser at another satellite and just using space as the medium.

Re: IPv10

#122

Post by NoInkling »

thinkMOAR wrote: post #29

Efforts to get ipv6 rolled out faster and easier are imho good. Though, not sure if this actually helps. I am not a fan of using hardware/mac addresses in ip addresses, in my opinion its a big security/privacy issue. Tracking, hardware details leaking etc. And somehow i think ipv10 will make the migration for some parties even less of a priority or less urge to 'finish' it. I think if they really want to 'promote' an…

You think they would willingly miss out on an entire day of revenue?

Re: IPv10

#123

Post by thinkMOAR »

NoInkling wrote: post #122
thinkMOAR wrote: post #29

Efforts to get ipv6 rolled out faster and easier are imho good. Though, not sure if this actually helps. I am not a fan of using hardware/mac addresses in ip addresses, in my opinion its a big security/privacy issue. Tracking, hardware details leaking etc. And somehow i think ipv10 will make the migration for some parties even less of a priority or less urge to 'finish' it. I think if they really want to 'promote' an…

You think they would willingly miss out on an entire day of revenue?

No, that not. monies are too important for many. But if they would consider such, hypothetical, i think it would be a great motivator for ipv6 adoption.

Re: IPv10

#124

Post by walshemj »

snuxoll wrote: post #98
davros wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

NAT doesn't solve the issues with IPv4, it merely delayed them. IPv6 is still the future, but everyone from ISP's to switch and router manufacturers have been dragging their feet on a real push to get us off IPv4. Hell, there are still modern switch platforms out there with full Layer 3 IPv4 support but IPv6 is curiously omitted - you've got to buy a bigger switch to get support for modern protocols (or an implementa…

NAT does give you some valuable security features though

Re: IPv10

#125

Post by __s »

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?

For crates.io it works out that if you yank a package no new packages can be published relying on the yanked version, but packages already relying on it can still download it

Re: IPv10

#126

Post by jgrahamc »

peterwwillis wrote: post #107
jgrahamc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How could we 'require a customer to just fix their anti-abuse system'?

Re: IPv10

#127

Post by snuxoll »

walshemj wrote: post #124
snuxoll wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT doesn't solve the issues with IPv4, it merely delayed them. IPv6 is still the future, but everyone from ISP's to switch and router manufacturers have been dragging their feet on a real push to get us off IPv4. Hell, there are still modern switch platforms out there with full Layer 3 IPv4 support but IPv6 is curiously omitted - you've got to buy a bigger switch to get support for modern protocols (or an implementa…

NAT does give you some valuable security features though

NAT is still ultimately a kludge for security, a stateful firewall is a much better solution and doesn’t interfere with the assumption that an IP address represents a device and not an entire corporate/home network.

Re: IPv10

#128

Post by rurban »

Hikikomori wrote: post #108
rurban wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that's why nobody's doing it.

Re: IPv10

#130

Post by bandrami »

gvx wrote: post #106
bandrami wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I wait for it to be validated by the client and then apply the patch according to the established controls and protocols if the risk assessment team gives a green light.
Post reply on HN