
IPv10 - Aissen
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-06.html
======
jonawesomegreen
In case folks haven't been involved in the IETF RFC process before, even
though this is hosted on IETF.org this is just a ID (Internet Draft). They can
be submitted by literally anyone. The tool to do so is here:
[https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/](https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/)

Lots of crazy things get submitted, and never looked at again. In order for
drafts to stay alive they need to be updated with comments every 6 months.
Sometimes they lead to things, and sometimes they don't. Usually some IETF
working group has to be interested for a draft to go from a draft to an actual
RFC.

You can see the status of this draft here:
[https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/89166/](https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/89166/)

You can find a list of current drafts here: [https://www.ietf.org/download/id-
abstract.txt](https://www.ietf.org/download/id-abstract.txt)

Given the lack of comments on the draft, and the fact its not actually
attached to an IETF working group, its fairly safe to say that this isn't
actually going to become a real protocol anytime soon.

~~~
olau
Slight correction, you have provided the link to the submission processing
status, here's the link to the draft itself:

[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-omar-
ipv10/](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-omar-ipv10/)

------
drinchev
Excerpt :

    
    
        - That means, if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv4
          address in the destination address field, the router
          should use the IPv4 routing table to make a routing
          decision, and if the received IPv10 packet contains an IPv6
          address in the destination address field, the router should
          use the IPv6 routing table to make a routing decision.
    
        - All Internet connected hosts must be IPv10 hosts to be
          able to communicate regardless the used IP version,
          and the IPv10 deployment process can be accomplished
          by ALL technology companies developing OSs for hosts
          networking and security devices.
    

Earlier in the RFC ( reasoning on IPv6 support ) :

    
    
        ... also, not all enterprises
        devices support IPv6 and also many people are afraid of the service
        outage that can be caused due to this migration.
    

If migrating to IPv10 requires the migration of the same infrastructure,
what's the point of having it?

~~~
whatidonteven
Also from the same author: Satellite Internet [0]

[0] [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-
si-00](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00)

~~~
stephen_g
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!

~~~
jabl
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?

~~~
bhouston
He has a lot of other proposals as well:
[http://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.ca/2017/03/khaled-
rout...](http://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.ca/2017/03/khaled-routing-
protocol-krp.html)

------
bipson
This is guy is something different (not that it would make his ideas worth any
less, more on that later).

Some of his recent efforts:

Satellite Internet [0] (kudos whatidonteven) - I don't think he thought this
one through. What is wrong with the current approach? Should we really erect
wires in outer space?

He is currently kind of harassing the IETF via mailing lists about IPv10,
threatening "If the ideas explained on these drafts will be used, discussed or
published by the ietf, legal actions will be taken." [1] - not really how the
IETF works.

The version number as "ingenious" 4+6 is annoying, IMO. That's not how version
numbers work?

His drawing on his his very own routing protocol - KRP - are also something
[2]. Although the quality of his drawings has nothing to do with his ideas per
se, it seems he rushed it together in an afternoon.

I don't want to say that he is overestimating his own intelligence, rather
that he is _underestimating_ the efforts, hard work and intelligence of
everyone else working in this field mostly _professionally_. His proposals can
not easily be judged, because they dismiss almost everything that others have
done previously. Why should so many smart people have missed these
(obvious/simple) solutions? We are where we are for a reason. You need a good
chain of arguments to "dismiss" the current state of the art.

[0] [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-
si-00](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00)

[1] [http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/RE-IPv10-KRP-and-RRP-IDs-
Remova...](http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/RE-IPv10-KRP-and-RRP-IDs-Removal-
td534031.html#a534090)

[2]
[http://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.co.at/](http://khaledroutingprotocol.blogspot.co.at/)

~~~
anoother
His address is also interesting:

    
    
       The Road
       6th of October City, Giza
       Egypt

~~~
mcguire
Well, 6th of October City is a place.
([https://goo.gl/maps/z141gu8cMYB2](https://goo.gl/maps/z141gu8cMYB2))

------
nickcw
Not sure I understand why this is necessary...

The IPv6 address space covers the IPv4 address space already:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Representation)

> During the transition of the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6, it is typical to
> operate in a mixed addressing environment. For such use cases, a special
> notation has been introduced, which expresses IPv4-mapped and
> IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses by writing the least-significant 32 bits of
> an address in the familiar IPv4 dot-decimal notation, whereas all preceding
> ones are written in IPv6 format. For example, the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address
> ::ffff:c000:0280 is written as ::ffff:192.0.2.128, thus expressing clearly
> the original IPv4 address that was mapped to IPv6.

That needs some sort of gateway to work, but I'm assuming that that is the
kind of thing your ISP would do for you.

And if you have to convert each IPv4 only host to an IPv10 host to use it, why
not convert it to dual stack IPv4/IPv6 instead?

~~~
walshemj
Because ipv6 was designed with not much thought to migration and interworking
with ipv4

~~~
davros
And migrating is all cost no benefit. And the problems ipv6 was intended to
solve have long since been addressed better by other means (eg NAT).

~~~
snuxoll
NAT doesn't solve the issues with IPv4, it merely delayed them. IPv6 is still
the future, but everyone from ISP's to switch and router manufacturers have
been dragging their feet on a real push to get us off IPv4. Hell, there are
still modern switch platforms out there with full Layer 3 IPv4 support but
IPv6 is curiously omitted - you've got to buy a bigger switch to get support
for modern protocols (or an implementation that isn't totally gimped).

~~~
walshemj
NAT does give you some valuable security features though

~~~
snuxoll
NAT is still ultimately a kludge for security, a stateful firewall is a much
better solution and doesn’t interfere with the assumption that an IP address
represents a device and not an entire corporate/home network.

------
networked
[https://twitter.com/The_Road_Series/status/86814034617735577...](https://twitter.com/The_Road_Series/status/868140346177355777)

This doesn't look good.

~~~
jnbiche
Wow, is this some kind of joke? This is the guy who created this new protocol?
Hopefully, it's as good as dead now.

~~~
stephen_g
Look at his other draft proposals - he seems serious but seems to have no idea
what's actually involved in designing or specifying a real protocol...

------
princekolt
I have a better solution to the IPv4 problem. It will just take Google to put
"Websites that provide IPv6 traffic routing will be prioritized on search
results" in their search ranking rules – Bam! Problem solved. It seems to have
worked with SSL.

~~~
snuxoll
Wake me when AWS, Azure or GCP have proper IPv6 support.

~~~
mindcrime
How do you define "proper IPv6 support"? AWS certainly has considerable
support for IPv6 today:

[https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-ipv6-update-global-
supp...](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-ipv6-update-global-support-
spanning-15-regions-multiple-aws-services/)

~~~
snuxoll
Wow, I never heard about this until now - it's about damned time! Now if
Google and MS could step up to the plate we'd have a large chunk of services
in a position ready to enable IPv6 support.

------
adtac
Mildly off-topic, but I've always wondered about having a non-fixed length
address scheme: if there are 64 bits in the address, let the first 8 bits
(64/8 = 8) be 1 and the 9th bit be 0. This way we encode the length of the
address. After that, every bit is available for use (all 64 - 9 = 55 bits).

Suddenly want to increase the domain from 2^55 to something much higher? Use a
15-byte address where the first 15 bits are 1s and the 16th bit is 0. The rest
of the (15*8 - 16 = 104) bits are available.

You get the point - we can arbitrarily increase the size without giving up
flexibility.

What's the drawback if we use something like this? Routing troubles? Speed?

Alternative method: the addresses can be as many bits as required, but every
bit index that's a multiple of 8 must be 1. The last byte is signified by a
byte having 0 at index 0. Basically:

    
    
        [1]1010110 [1]0001111 [0]1101011
                               ^ last byte

~~~
icebraining
Your method is essentially how UTF-8 works. I think the problem is
implementing that efficiently in hardware, which is needed for routers.

~~~
WhoooItsMe
Not quite, UTF-8 encodes the length of the sequence in the first byte, instead
of marking the end, this makes more sense because it is easier to detect
broken input. 1110xxxx 10xxxxxx 0xxxxxxx obviously has a byte missing and is
broken, but [1]xxxxxxx [0]xxxxxxx could have any number of bytes missing an
would just yield the wrong value.

------
baq
had to double check the date to see if it's not an April 1st. it isn't.

wow.

------
saywatnow
I guess all it takes to push a draft is hubris. The clear fact it hasn't
received editorial feedback from a single native speaker is an indication how
popular this is. (not to shame non-native speakers!)

------
IpV8
Shit, i've been overlooked entirely...

------
oliwarner
Real IPv6 deployment is held up because of the 50-100 biggest ISPs in North
America and Europe. Get them to start taking this seriously and everything
else falls into line over night.

The IETF barking out other suggestions is just a distraction.

~~~
stephen_g
Don't worry, this is just a random submission from someone who also came up
with the 'new' idea of accessing the Internet through satellites this year...
(Posted above - [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-
si-00](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-si-00))

It's not going to be seriously considered (it doesn't make sense anyway -
upgrading to this protocol would be the same effort as upgrading to IPv6 -
it's entirely pointless).

~~~
thechao
Just to be clear: the satellites in his network are _plugged in_. That's novel
AF.

~~~
MertsA
I think the funniest part is that fiber optics are irrelevant in space, you'd
be better off just pointing a laser at another satellite and just using space
as the medium.

------
Derbasti
> The first version of the Internet Protocol is IPv4.

Version numbers are great!

~~~
vog
I actually like their conservative approach with version numbers.

For what it's worth, in IPv4 time there were some experiments with a new IP
variant, those got the version 5. You won't find these anywhere in today's
networks, but just to be sure, the next official version got number 6.

The opposite is what we see in some programs and libraries: First, they
publish version 1.2.2. Then version 1.2.3. But ooops, 1.2.3 had an issue.
Well, let's just release a new tarball and label it 1.2.3 as well. Hopefully
nobody noticed this. How big are the chances that somebody downloaded the
broken package during the past 2 hours? (I guess using another number for the
fixed release, such as 1.2.4, would have been too expensive. Or so.)

~~~
__s
Libraries at least should have mechanisms to release 1.2.4 & yank 1.2.3 from
whichever package repos they're on. Package repos generally won't allow
pushing an update to a version without version bump

~~~
bandrami
That's a horrible idea. What if I can't upgrade to 1.2.4?

~~~
gvx
It should always be possible to upgrade a patch level. How else would you get
security updates?

~~~
bandrami
I wait for it to be validated by the client and then apply the patch according
to the established controls and protocols if the risk assessment team gives a
green light.

------
iamfunatparties
Protocol names should be 128-bit wide to allow for future expansion in
available protocols.

------
thinkMOAR
Efforts to get ipv6 rolled out faster and easier are imho good. Though, not
sure if this actually helps.

I am not a fan of using hardware/mac addresses in ip addresses, in my opinion
its a big security/privacy issue. Tracking, hardware details leaking etc.

And somehow i think ipv10 will make the migration for some parties even less
of a priority or less urge to 'finish' it. I think if they really want to
'promote' and accelerate IPv6 rollout... Facebook and Instagram should have
ipv6 days only. E.g. one day in the week or month, you can only connect with
facebook/instagram over ipv6; then you'll see how fast endusers will want to
be on ipv6 (and once all endusers are dual stacked.. parties can slowly start
disabling ipv4 all together). And then i assume the ipv4 only parties will
make a bit of a hurry getting their ipv6 in order.

~~~
NoInkling
You think they would willingly miss out on an entire day of revenue?

~~~
thinkMOAR
No, that not. monies are too important for many. But if they would consider
such, hypothetical, i think it would be a great motivator for ipv6 adoption.

------
cm2187
One area where I am not keen to see IPv6 spreading is SMTP traffic. IP
reputation while not perfect is still a useful layer of lipstick on the SMTP
pig.

One area where I am keen to see IPv6 spreading is IoT. I don't know if we can
ever secure those things, but it will certainly make scanning the IP address
space for vulnerable devices impractical.

~~~
pilif
_> IP reputation while not perfect is still a useful layer of lipstick on the
SMTP pig._

just use the prefix for reputation. You can assume that each user will have
received a /48\. Yes. There are some ISPs out there handing out /64's or even
a /128, so it might be somewhat too broad, but blacklisting a the whole /48
and then white-listing on (rare) demand is probably the way to go.

~~~
zrm
If you assume the user has a /48 when they really have a /64, you're off by a
factor of 65536. For address blocks allocated to business customers, a
nontrivial percentage (say 10%) may be operating mail servers. Which means
that one misbehaving customer will cause you to block thousands of honest
ones. That's a lot of white listing to do.

------
CodeWriter23
As a side note, I was very confused about IPv6 addresses popping up in my
server logs when I knew it only had IPv4 provisioned. Turns out CloudFlare had
automatically published AAAA records for my domain and was v6-to-v4 proxying
my inbound HTTP/HTTPS traffic. For free! Just another reason to love
CloudFlare.

~~~
exikyut
That's... cute. But not breaking anything, so, huh. Not bad.

~~~
lathiat
essentially because of X-Forwarded-For

They have an even crazier feature that rewrites IPv6 source addresses as
random but unique IPv4 addresses for software that can't deal with that:
[https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-
to-...](https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-to-not-
enable-ipv6/)

~~~
jgrahamc
That feature isn't as nuts as you think.

Clearly the IPv6 space doesn't compress 1-1 into the IPv4 space but this gives
you way to work with the top 64 bits of the IPv6 address and then feed it into
your anti-abuse system. If your abuse system works probabilistically then this
isn't too problematic as this becomes just another signal. And IPv4-based
systems already deal with multiple people behind the same IP because of NAT.

~~~
peterwwillis
You have users who can already access a site using IPv4, but want to use IPv6,
and you have an anti-abuse system that lacks support, so you decided to invent
a new kind of NAT, rather than require the customer to just fix their anti-
abuse system, which they'd need to do on other platforms anyway?

The feature isn't nuts, but the rationale seems so.

~~~
jgrahamc
How could we 'require a customer to just fix their anti-abuse system'?

------
quickthrower2
Why V10. Because 4+6?

~~~
rbinv
Yes:

"IPv10 allows hosts from two IP versions (IPv4 and IPv6) to be able to
communicate, and this can be accomplished by having an IPv10 packet containing
a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the same IP packet header."

~~~
qatanah
engineers have an obscure way of naming things.

~~~
vesinisa
Sound more like an in-joke. Cf. GNU (GNU's Not Unix) or YACC (Yet-Another
Compiler Compiler).

~~~
rplnt
Or YAML, originally "Yet Another Markup Language", now "YAML Ain't Markup
Language".

------
exabrial
The ASCII Graphics in RFPs are getting more advanced these days

------
cesarb
Some previous HN discussion about this happened within the following comment
thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14419867](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14419867)

------
ericfrederich
I have GigaBit internet from AT&T. Speeds have been terrible and pings were
like 130ms. I disabled IPv6 on my laptop and things improved. I disabled IPv6
on my router and it improved even more.

Do we really need IPv10?

~~~
mikl
You’re making a good case for something other than IPv6. And since we’re
running out of IPv4 addresses, we will need to switch to something else,
eventually.

------
randomerr
Anyone remember IPv7? Yeah, it was a thing:

[https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1475.txt](https://www.rfc-
editor.org/rfc/rfc1475.txt)

------
ton31337
few cents from me about this /o\
[http://blog.donatas.net/blog/2017/09/10/ipv10/](http://blog.donatas.net/blog/2017/09/10/ipv10/)

------
svennek
I am not sure about the base idea, but isn't the ipv10 (i.e. protocol number
10) going to cause problems?

Aren't hosts expected to choose the highest protocol number they understand?
So basically this forever kills (protocol) ipv6 and replaces it with
ipv6+ipv4, which is never going to fly (because the "underlying" ipv4 is
sunsetting and hopefully gone within a decade)...

------
johnhenry
IPv10 = IPv4 + IPv6?

------
bertolo1988
Why not IPv16 and fix the problem for ever?

~~~
joeblau
Will it fix it? This seems like a scaling issue we're going to have to deal
with forever.

~~~
matthewmacleod
You may be underestimating how many IPv6 addresses there are! 2^128 is huge.
Like, if we assigned one trillion new addresses every second since the birth
of the universe, we’d still have enough left over to do the same in another
800 million parallel universes. Truly astronomical numbers.

Obviously not all of these addresses will be used; in practice we aren’t going
to run out any time soon.

~~~
badsectoracula
Of course this assumes we don't assign half of the address space to Apple,
Facebook, Google and their friends, or something silly like that, like it was
done with IPv4 (with the equivalent "friends" at the time).

~~~
cesarb
I read in one of the IPv6 RFCs (don't recall which one at the moment), that
initially only 1/8 of the possible address space will be allocated. If for
some reason that space is filled up, there's still another 7/8 which can be
allocated with a more conservative policy.

