News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Protocol Wars. Parent comment

Re:Protocol Wars by p1mrx on Thursday May 11, 2023 @12:46PM (#35904778)
Consider that NAT64 is able to translate between IPv4 and IPv6 at the packet level. If the protocols were as different as you suggest, this wouldn't be possible.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Protocol Wars by michaelt on Thursday May 11, 2023 @05:13PM (#35908473)
Doesn't IPv6 remove broadcast, thus removing DHCP and ARP?

I mean, hosts need to be 'dual stack' to support IPv4 and IPv6 together - whereas TheLoafOfBread's proposal would allow support of both with one backward-compatible stack.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Protocol Wars by p1mrx on Thursday May 11, 2023 @06:32PM (#35909240)
DHCP and ARP use 32-bit addresses, so those protocols had to change regardless.

I would challenge you to find someone who knows the difference between Ethernet broadcast and multicast without looking up the answer. They are very similar mechanisms.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Protocol Wars by yencabulator on Friday May 12, 2023 @11:37AM (#35917718)
NAT64 is never in a position to need to translate DHCP & ARP, those live fully on one side of NAT64 ("4" side for DHCP & ARP, "6" side for SLAAC/DHCPv6 & NDP).

NAT64 is involved on the level of TCP & UDP, not lower level protocols.

[ Parent | on HN ]