IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
datatracker.ietf.org
IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
#2Good. The longer we build as if v4 isn't legacy support, the more drawn-out and uglier the already uncomfortable transition will be.
Re: IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
#3This feels optimistically premature.
Sure, it's been superseded, and it's great to move the ball forward. But somehow I think this legacy technology will be in use for a long, long time.
Re: IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
#4This feels optimistically premature. Sure, it's been superseded, and it's great to move the ball forward. But somehow I think this legacy technology will be in use for a long, long time.
I think the same, IPv4 isn't going anywhere soon.
Re: IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
#5Everyone take note that this is an individual v0 draft, it says "Type: Active Internet-Draft (individual)" and "Intended status: Standards Track". Before this becomes and RFC (if it ever does at all) it has to go through discussions as an individual draft, then it has to be voted to become standards track, at which point it will become a working group draft where it goes through more comments, editing, and waiting, and only then does it become an official RFC. To give you an idea of the time scale this is talking about, see that this version of this draft expires in September.
This is in no way some proclamation that IPv4 is no more, it's more like the obituaries that news papers have sitting around for public figures just in case they die. The IETF isn't quick at getting RFCs published, and it definitely won't be with something as big as this.
Re: IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
#6I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere, as long as it remains in the business interests of major cloud providers, and as long as people continue to deploy NAT based firewalls as a security feature.
Re: business interests: Cloud businesses can acquire IP addresses at price points far higher than the average developer can. Now that the ARIN address space is exhausted, cloud providers will begin to buy more and more IPv4 space until they have a complete monopoly and large portions of IPv4 are controlled by just a few companies. This will price other companies out of offering cloud services that are IPv4 compatible.
Re: security: Sure, the original intended purpose of NAT was not security, but people use it for that, and will continue to do so. If you want to put multiple boxes behind a single IP address, IPv4 is the easiest way to do it. In fact, IPv6 seems to be a step backward in terms of security. Every device does not need to be openly addressable from anywhere on the Internet, and developers will always choose the path of least resistance, especially when it's more secure.
Re: IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
#7I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere
A) Get bent.
B) You think they don't already know the only chance of dualstack going away is so it can become tristack?
Re: IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
#8I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere, as long as it remains in the business interests of major cloud providers, and as long as people continue to deploy NAT based firewalls as a security feature. Re: business interests: Cloud businesses can acquire IP addresses at price points far higher than the average developer can. Now that the ARIN address space is exhausted, cloud providers wi…
Regarding the path of least resistance for developers eventually, hopefully, perhaps traversing NAT will prove to be a bigger pain for the average developer than just using IPv6.
Re: IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
#9I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere, as long as it remains in the business interests of major cloud providers, and as long as people continue to deploy NAT based firewalls as a security feature. Re: business interests: Cloud businesses can acquire IP addresses at price points far higher than the average developer can. Now that the ARIN address space is exhausted, cloud providers wi…
NAT is not a security feature. Please stop repeating this toxic drivel.
NAT is not the same as firewalls, and firewalls do not require NAT. NAT is just an ugly hack to stretch IPV4's inadequate address space, and it's one that breaks quite a few protocols and generally makes a lot of things painful and complex.
Remember back when there were two dozen different networking layers vying for the ability to link Docker containers? (There still are, but Docker's hype wave has crested so you don't see them every 5 minutes on here.) With IPv6 and no NAT, none of that is necessary. Just give every container a real address, set your firewall rules accordingly, and every container anywhere can talk directly to every other container without any added complexity. Give each container host a /96 address and let it assign container IPs from the remaining /32, for up to four billion containers per host. Since IPv6 specifies that an ISP should hand out /64's to customers, each customer can have 4 billion container hosts.
Getting rid of NAT makes everything orders of magnitude simpler.
I do wonder about monopoly resistance. I wonder if IPv6 has been shunned by Amazon, Google, and Microsoft clouds because they see a long term advantage in preventing adoption. IPv6 makes peer to peer systems a lot easier to build, and peer to peer is direct competition to the 'run absolutely everything through the cloud' model. IPv6 could actually reduce the cloud's importance (especially for data transit) if it were widely deployed.
Re: IPv4 Declared Historic – Draft
#10I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere, as long as it remains in the business interests of major cloud providers, and as long as people continue to deploy NAT based firewalls as a security feature. Re: business interests: Cloud businesses can acquire IP addresses at price points far higher than the average developer can. Now that the ARIN address space is exhausted, cloud providers wi…
NAT is not a security feature, it never was and it will never be. Stateful connection tracking however is a security feature. NAT uses it to route the right packets to the right computers, but firewalls can also use the same feature to drop unsolicited packets. It's nearly trivial to do this with iptables, OpenWRT does it by default, and I'm sure most other IPv6-capable routers do it too. I'm just as secure on IPv6 as I'm on IPv4.
IPv6 also allows you to do weird stuff like using a single IP address per connection, which makes it even harder to address a single computer from the internet.
IPv6 is just as safe if not safer than IPv4, if you use it correctly.