The consensus on HN/Lobsters seems to be that this is some kind of joke or crackpot or some other thing not to be taken seriously. This page says it more clearly: "IETF has published a draft"...
The consensus on HN/Lobsters seems to be that this is some kind of joke or crackpot or some other thing not to be taken seriously.
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D). Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF. This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the IETF standards process.
"IETF has published a draft" sounds big and official, but it's in the same ballpark as "Wikipedia has published an article."
Interesting that they’re making it backwards compatible with IPv4. That was probably one of the biggest issues with IPv6 adoption. It wasn’t a drop in replacement, you still had to run the old...
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.
Interesting that they’re making it backwards compatible with IPv4. That was probably one of the biggest issues with IPv6 adoption. It wasn’t a drop in replacement, you still had to run the old separate infrastructure for people using IPv4.
It looks like it took from 1996 to 2017 for IPv6 to move from first draft to adopted final specifications, so I wouldn’t expect this anytime soon?
Simply stating something is backwards compatible does not make it so. You have a host address 205.76.34.212.98.132.0.123 - it wants to communicate with the server at 76.234.201.54.78.143.156.4 The...
Simply stating something is backwards compatible does not make it so.
You have a host address 205.76.34.212.98.132.0.123 - it wants to communicate with the server at 76.234.201.54.78.143.156.4
The specification claims that the networks do not need modification. So this communication and routing needs to happen over the IPv4 address. What do you put in the source and destination field of the IPv4 packets? How does an intervening network get the packet to the right place?
The draft’s actual proposal is that network operators deploy a whole bunch of middleware and new protocols that will enable IPv8->IPv4 connectivity but that is only one sided (at least one end needs to be reachable over IPv4), doesn’t meet its own criteria of not modifying the networks, and all of this exists for IPv6 already and has not solved the chicken and egg problem of “why would you deploy an IPvX only service when N% of your clients can’t reach it” and “why would an ISP deploy IPvX infrastructure when no IPvX-only services exist?”
Backwards compatibility is a great idea in theory, but I wonder how an IPv4 device would properly route an IPv8 packet when it's only looking at four octets of the destination address? I guess I...
Backwards compatibility is a great idea in theory, but I wonder how an IPv4 device would properly route an IPv8 packet when it's only looking at four octets of the destination address? I guess I should probably read the draft, but I tend to doubt IPv8 would be a drop in replacement. (Yes, IPv6 is/was a pain to adopt.)
I didnt think there could be a funnier joke than ipv6 or the rollout of ipv6.... The beeauty of ipv8 is poetry compared to the monkey typewriter keysmash of ipv6, even if every software on the...
I didnt think there could be a funnier joke than ipv6 or the rollout of ipv6....
The beeauty of ipv8 is poetry compared to the monkey typewriter keysmash of ipv6, even if every software on the planet would likely just truncate it to ipv4.
The consensus on HN/Lobsters seems to be that this is some kind of joke or crackpot or some other thing not to be taken seriously.
This page says it more clearly:
"IETF has published a draft" sounds big and official, but it's in the same ballpark as "Wikipedia has published an article."
Interesting that they’re making it backwards compatible with IPv4. That was probably one of the biggest issues with IPv6 adoption. It wasn’t a drop in replacement, you still had to run the old separate infrastructure for people using IPv4.
It looks like it took from 1996 to 2017 for IPv6 to move from first draft to adopted final specifications, so I wouldn’t expect this anytime soon?
Simply stating something is backwards compatible does not make it so.
You have a host address 205.76.34.212.98.132.0.123 - it wants to communicate with the server at 76.234.201.54.78.143.156.4
The specification claims that the networks do not need modification. So this communication and routing needs to happen over the IPv4 address. What do you put in the source and destination field of the IPv4 packets? How does an intervening network get the packet to the right place?
The draft’s actual proposal is that network operators deploy a whole bunch of middleware and new protocols that will enable IPv8->IPv4 connectivity but that is only one sided (at least one end needs to be reachable over IPv4), doesn’t meet its own criteria of not modifying the networks, and all of this exists for IPv6 already and has not solved the chicken and egg problem of “why would you deploy an IPvX only service when N% of your clients can’t reach it” and “why would an ISP deploy IPvX infrastructure when no IPvX-only services exist?”
Backwards compatibility is a great idea in theory, but I wonder how an IPv4 device would properly route an IPv8 packet when it's only looking at four octets of the destination address? I guess I should probably read the draft, but I tend to doubt IPv8 would be a drop in replacement. (Yes, IPv6 is/was a pain to adopt.)
Anyone any idea how serious this is? edit: other comments clarify: not.
I didnt think there could be a funnier joke than ipv6 or the rollout of ipv6....
The beeauty of ipv8 is poetry compared to the monkey typewriter keysmash of ipv6, even if every software on the planet would likely just truncate it to ipv4.