Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


IPv4S coming soon? IPv6 is dead?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

IPv4S coming soon? IPv6 is dead?

jmginerjmginer Member, Patron Provider
edited December 2013 in General

Source: http://blog.acostasite.com/2013/12/ipv6-no-te-vistas-que-no-vas-ahora-ipv4s.html

After a secret meeting almost a week in Switzerland, major hardware and software manufacturers worldwide took the drastic decision not to continue with the development and implementation of IPv6. Alternatively they unanimously decided to use the same IPv4 protocol and create a new concept of sub-IP (IPv4S).

Technical details are described as follows: "Let's use a bit that is reserved in the IPv4 header from source (RFC 791), the bit to be on the hosts will read the data fields indicating more IPv4 addresses, ie, is a subset of IPv4 ". According to the TNIV PhD Freq: "This is something that should be done long ago."

Thanked by 2SkylarM Mark_R
«13

Comments

  • albertdbalbertdb Member
    edited December 2013

    Edit: Interesting ;)

  • jmginerjmginer Member, Patron Provider
    edited December 2013

    :) shhh chitón!

  • lol IPv4S. We are not Apple.

  • I call BS.

    Thanked by 1Infinity
  • If you read it on the Internet, it must be true.

    Thanked by 1Infinity
  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    I hope it is true.

  • why not IPv8

  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran

    somone offer ipv4s?

  • To me, it sounds like a Hoax.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    @Zen I agree, personally I always thought trying to go from v4 to v6 was just to big of a step and it always seemed like they just skipped a step and at the end of the day if the hardware manufacturers turn their back on v6 that is what will actually kill it and given the problems it seems to be giving them I would not blame them.

    I always thought that something like this would make more sense, expand v4 first v6 later.

  • This is hillarious :D

  • This is major bullshit.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    @kontam said:
    This is major bullshit.

    It could well be major BS however the sad truth is it makes total sense.

  • yes 64 bit is too easy to remember, I want 256bit.

    Thanked by 1perennate
  • Making changes in an existing standard sounds worse than starting a new standard.

  • @Zen said:
    if this is actually possible)

    It is, it's not a new idea -- as the article seems to claim.

  • @AnthonySmith said:
    It could well be major BS however the sad truth is it makes total sense.

    Why? IPv6 doesn't bring just a large range of addresses, there's native IPSec support as well out of many other things.

  • kerouackerouac Member
    edited December 2013

    @Zen said:
    Making that new standard is causing a fuck ton of problems, non of which are being resolved or at least not fast enough.

    Wouldn't changing a standard cause them problems and also cause mix-ups?

  • Interesting to see that esp. people from countries where the internet is technologically still in the 80ies seem to have problems understanding and applying IPv6. Yes, there are countries where clients get IPv6 by default, even from the big ISPs. So it can't be only a hardware-problem.

  • john_kjohn_k Member
    edited December 2013

    Good post !!.

    December 28th is April's fools day in Spain and most of Latin American countries... read the date on the attached link from the OP.

    I hate to spoil it, but you'all are aware of the fact.

    cheers, mate.

    Thanked by 3kinotix netomx Asim
  • @Zen said:
    Theoretically it would be the same principal execution as v4 > v6 which is that both can be used at once without issue. The difference is the amount of work that needs to go into the change.. if the structure for it already exists inside v4 then its a matter of policy and optional (and at some point forced) adoption - whereas with v6 you are looking at issues that spread between hardware vendors, service providers, the multiple layers between, along with all of the different types of service providers. It's like trying to tell oil conglomerates to switch to renewable energy - why would they when assuming they don't the price of oil will just continually rise and thus their profit will increase? The reasons are obvious, but the greed outweighs those reasons and thus the switch is not being made, or at least very slowly. And that's once again focusing on only one aspect of the v4 > v6 change which is monetary/financials.

    The economic aspect seems interesting, that's probably a game Americans would play. But if the costs rise too much, at some point the switch is gonna have to happen. At least in countries where national broadband-carriers are state-owned, they would attempt the switch rather than making the costs rise. Same thing for the countries that give the internet importance, like "human right" etc. ie Finland, and also countries which are -for some reason- good with modern infrastructure ie Lithuania, for "efficiency"s sake, Germans will jump in there too, and Europe's fixed. (hopefully)

    Some countries will have problems though, for example, I think there's a problem with IPs in Singapore. The relatively new Softlayer DC sometimes gives out IPs they transfered from the US and in the records (or was it 100tb/westhost), country still shows US although physically Sing.

  • @IceCream said:
    lol IPv4S. We are not Apple.

    Interestingly enough, searching online for "ipv4s" gave nearly all results plural of ipv4 and this one: http://oyvind.hoysater.no/lang/en/2012/01/geek-monday-ipv4s-nerdemandag/

  • SkylarMSkylarM Member
    edited December 2013

    @kerouac said:

    That Ip "issue" is simply how Geolocation with Ips work. That information is cached typically for up to 90 days, so if it had an entry of a US address prior then it will continue to do so even if it routes elsewhere until the database has updated the information. Tons of services base off of geolocation though of course. Speedtest, google routing, etc. Would be nice if there was a faster way to update geolocation on IPs.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    Regardless of how many people might like IPv6 and no one is denying it has advantages the cold hard truth is it is a huge problem to switch over, a number of UK ISP tried native IPv6 and dropped it soon after opting for carrier grade NAT instead.

    Cogent and HE don't peer and probably wont for a long time on IPv6, when some people came out with an excellent idea of IPv6 it was far too "ideal world" and gave very little consideration to the practical elements of the switch over and how many millions of variables need to line up in order to make it a reality. It always seemed more of a 'If we build a standard they must adapt and embrace' when in reality they just ignored it.

    Back in 2001,2002 or 2003 (I forget when now) when I was doing my CCNA we touched on IPv6 at the cisco academy and everyone had the same opinion back then which was "I cant see anyone being in a hurry to adopt that as a standard" and 11 years later... IPv6 adoption is pathetic.

    The hardware manufacturers will essentially make or kill IPv6 IMO because no one can force them to adapt especially when the demand is so low, why they do not simply adapt IPv4 while working on IPv6 as a longer term goal is beyond me, something even as simple as modifying/hacking the standard behind 802.11q for external use and giving each country/ISP/EDU its own "route tag" would allow the same IPv4 ranges to be used over and over again without collision, it works around the bit boundaries in IPv4 and a HELL of a lot easier to implement than IPv6

    Anyway, joke thread or not it raises some interesting arguments that many of us want to become reality.

  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    Anthony very smart response.

    One thing that cannot be overlooked is the tech refresh caused by ipv6. The economic benefit to manufacturers is massive. Who pays for that? ISPs and datacenter like us who pass the cost to consumers.

    No question there was a smarter bridge solution here compared to a direct transition to v6.

    But even then between all the reserve /8 blocks and the organizations still holding legacy /8s and those with Arin /8s (which they need only a 20th of) true exhaustion is a very long ways away.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    Indeed, it is one of those 95% of the entire words wealth is held by 2% of its population issues, there is enough to go around but don't expect the 2% to give up their wealth/IP's without a fight.

    Humans dont do what is best for the majority they look after themselves and immediate interests, the same applies to companies, I don't see why IP's will be any different, true exhaustion? no probably not for a long time, as good as true exhaustion? right around the corner.

    Thanked by 2vRozenSch00n 5n1p
  • Steve81Steve81 Member
    edited December 2013

    said: After a secret meeting

    A conspiracy to kill IPv4? Seems legit...

  • @SkylarM said:
    That Ip "issue" is simply how Geolocation with Ips work. That information is cached typically for up to 90 days, so if it had an entry of a US address prior then it will continue to do so even if it routes elsewhere until the database has updated the information. Tons of services base off of geolocation though of course. Speedtest, google routing, etc. Would be nice if there was a faster way to update geolocation on IPs.

    bro i did not use the word "issue" why is it in quotation marks? :) i meant they've exhausted ips over there so they are transferring in from arin.

  • kerouackerouac Member
    edited December 2013

    @AnthonySmith said:
    giving each country/ISP/EDU its own "route tag" would allow the same IPv4 ranges to be used over and over again without collision, it works around the bit boundaries in IPv4 and a HELL of a lot easier to implement than IPv6

    what would the outcomes of this in the phishing aspect and of course governemtent censorship via changing route of an ip?

    for example in Turkey, there's internet censorship, they do it via dns. (of course everybody goes around it via 3rd party dns)

    if let was censored:

    normalistan: lowendtalk.com ---> dns ---> ip of let = server of let
    turkey: lowendtalk.com ---> turkish telecom dns ---> ip of gov't landing page = gov't cloud

    if LET served the site directly from an ip address, the dns element wouldn't be in the game and it couldn't be censored if users know its ip.

    in such a world, wouldn't playing with ipv4 routing possibly bring shitty outcomes?

    lowendtalk.com ---> 3rd party dns (google, open) ---> ip of let --- visitors hailing from usa ---> let server |--- visitors from TR ---> gov't landing page

  • imperioimperio Member
    edited December 2013

    kerouac said: normalistan

    LOL

Sign In or Register to comment.