I assumed this was a 1 April publication but nope, it appears to be real. My favorite part is how it basically pretends IPv6 doesn't exist except for a couple mentions of basically "no one likes v6."
1
Discussion
Loading...
@cR0w I think we can safely assume adoption will be *zero* of this. The main lesson of IPv6 is that change on a global scale is very very hard.
1
2
@JessTheUnstill @dch @cR0w folks will literally invent IPv8 to avoid having to implement IPv6 and sunset IPv4.
IPv4 is a proper subset of IPv8. An IPv8 address with the routing prefix field set to zero is an IPv4 address. No existing device, application, or network requires modification. The suite is 100% backward compatible. There is no flag day and no forced migration at any layer.
1
@ajn142 @dch @cR0w I'm nowhere near smart enough in networking to be able to understand this at a spec level, but I'm hopeful at least that the authors of this spec did actually learn from the debacle of IPv6 and managed to keep it to that 100% reverse compatibility contract. There's going to be IPv4 only hardware around until the end of the internet.
2
@JessTheUnstill @ajn142 @dch @cR0w It uses a different protocol number, so it’s “compatible” in that it won’t interfere with IPv4-only systems. Every system running IPv8 is effectively dual-stack; it involves a two-tier routing table, and IPv4 traffic skips the lookup in the first table. An IPv8 system is responsible for handling IPv4 traffic it receives, and it’s responsible for encapsulating IPv8 traffic inside IPv4 if needed (bringing all the attendant complexity of 6in4).
I haven’t finished the whole thing, but so far it feels no better than IPv6 at best, and a huge step backwards in several places.
@[email protected] not making IP6 at least partially backwards compatible, or at the very least presenting a visually 'compatible' representation, has got to be one of the largest self owns in computing standards history. @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@JessTheUnstill @dch I love NAT so much. I mean, is kind of terrible, but it works. And yeah, I'm shocked how well NAT / CG-NAT have scaled.
1
1
@JessTheUnstill @dch The best part is arguing with nerds about whether it's a security boundary or not.
1
bonfire.mavnn.eu
News and community around mavnn.eu projects.
Automatic federation enabled