News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on IPv10. Parent comment

Re:IPv10 by stephen_g on Thursday September 07, 2017 @07:18AM (#15190725)
I'm lost for words. How does somebody get to the point of submitting a draft to the IETF, seemingly believing this is a new idea in 2017? Surely this must be trolling?

    "Each satellite holds routers connected to other routers on other satellites using fiber optic cables"
You'd need 265,000 km (164,600 miles) of fibre to loop around the geostationary arc!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPv10 by jabl on Thursday September 07, 2017 @07:36AM (#15190838)
Crank-o'meter goes to eleven!

But yeah, if it's this easy to submit drafts to IETF, how come they haven't drowned in spam already?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPv10 by bhouston on Thursday September 07, 2017 @08:21AM (#15191134)
He has a lot of other proposals as well: http://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.ca/2017/03/khaled-rout...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPv10 by leni536 on Thursday September 07, 2017 @08:46AM (#15191308)
Well, the idea is obviously flawed, but I don't think the author meant geostationary orbits.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPv10 by MertsA on Thursday September 07, 2017 @06:21PM (#15196332)
Then it's much more flawed if it's for anything but geostationary orbits. The way it's written it sounds like he doesn't understand that geostationary satellites have to be high up in the equatorial plane as he mentions each satellite having a specific area.
[ Parent | on HN ]