Re:BGP.Tools: Browse the Internet Ecosystem
by icedchai on Thursday July 24, 2025 @08:48AM
(#44670004)
At this point, time would be better spent moving to IPv6, don't you think?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:BGP.Tools: Browse the Internet Ecosystem
by mike_d on Thursday July 24, 2025 @01:34PM
(#44673588)
We have been trying to deploy IPv6 for 20 years now. This would be comparatively easier and buy us another 20 years to finish v6 deployment.
Re:BGP.Tools: Browse the Internet Ecosystem
by icedchai on Thursday July 24, 2025 @02:55PM
(#44674630)
A ton of old equipment would need to be upgraded to use 240/4 for IPv4 unicast. We'd run into weird issues where it works for some people and not others. I'm not convinced. If this was done 25 years ago, maybe.
Re:BGP.Tools: Browse the Internet Ecosystem
by zamadatix on Thursday July 24, 2025 @01:57PM
(#44673874)
And 50% of the internet traffic is IPv6. The proposal here is to introduce a separate (arguably harder) change which would start at 0% support again. Beyond that, it'd just be a temporary fix.
Just 240/4 allowed specifically for private network use (like the 10/8 range)... that I could get behind though. This would still exclude 255.255.255.255/32 of course.
Re:BGP.Tools: Browse the Internet Ecosystem
by UltraSane on Friday July 25, 2025 @12:33AM
(#44679604)
The problem is that you can't really move completely to IPv6. You actually will have to run both IPv4 and IPv6 networks indefinitely. Which isn't a lot of fun.
Re:BGP.Tools: Browse the Internet Ecosystem
by icedchai on Friday July 25, 2025 @09:45AM
(#44683062)
Now, yes. But eventually, we'll reach a tipping point where that isn't necessary. When? Your guess is as good as mine.