IPv10 Draft Specification Published

[eduperez]

Even if I wanted to use IPv6 I don't think my ISP supports it, so there's that.

You can use one of the (free) available 6in4 tunnel brokers; for example, https://tunnelbroker.net/

[Azrael5]

if authorities don't impose the adoption of IPv6, ISps and site's owners hardly switch to IPv6.

[L_A_G]

I personally have two issues with this.

1: To anyone who hasn't had the naming explained to them, it suggests it's a third IP protocol to replace IPv4 and 6 rather than to function as a bridge between the two. A much better and less misleading name would be something like "IPX" standing for "Internet Protocol eXchange". Even if that's not acceptable for reasons like being the same as or too similar to something else then at the very least it shouldn't be called "Internet Protocol version Something".

2: The only real use for this is to extend the lifespan of legacy devices and systems using a protocol that should have been completely phased out years ago. It's essentially the computer network equivalent of a "re-leading" additive for gasoline and really should not be adopted when IPv4 is (deservedly) in the process of being phased out.

[Ancurio]

[QUOTE=L_A_G;n974973]I personally have two issues with this.

1: To anyone who hasn't had the naming explained to them, it suggests it's a third IP protocol to replace IPv4 and 6 rather than to function as a bridge between the two. A much better and less misleading name would be something like "IPX" standing for "Internet Protocol eXchange". Even if that's not acceptable for reasons like being the same as or too similar to something else then at the very least it shouldn't be called "Internet Protocol version Something".
/QUOTE]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internetwork_Packet_Exchange

[bug77]

I personally have two issues with this.

1: To anyone who hasn't had the naming explained to them, it suggests it's a third IP protocol to replace IPv4 and 6 rather than to function as a bridge between the two. A much better and less misleading name would be something like "IPX" standing for "Internet Protocol eXchange". Even if that's not acceptable for reasons like being the same as or too similar to something else then at the very least it shouldn't be called "Internet Protocol version Something".

2: The only real use for this is to extend the lifespan of legacy devices and systems using a protocol that should have been completely phased out years ago. It's essentially the computer network equivalent of a "re-leading" additive for gasoline and really should not be adopted when IPv4 is (deservedly) in the process of being phased out.

Eh, what's in a name?
The real suckage is taking a more or less clean slate protocol and adding to it to make it work together with a version that's supposed to go the way of the dodo. Then when we finally rid ourselves of IPv4, we'll be left maintaining these legacy bits, because everybody has them... But what can you do, entrenched technologies are entrenched for a (usually good) reason.

[L_A_G]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...acket_Exchange

So call it IPE then?

[Brane215]

I think this is more for servers than for consumers. And i see nothing wrong with using simpe ipv4 addresses for LAN and ipv6 for WAN.

Problem comes when you try to use any kind of P2P communication,, which has to somehow find its way through NAT, especially if it's on both sides.

Also, keep in mind that there are no free IPv4 adresses anymore.

[duby229]

Yeah, but there hasn't been any available ipv4 addresses in a few decades, that's nothing new. Long before ipv6 was even contemplated. Literally the only thing that ipv6 needs is for ISP's to start uising it once and for all. My ISP doesn't use it unless you pay extra for it.Change that and make it the standard, and then ipv6 will actually be a thing. Until then it can't be.

[cj.wijtmans]

Problem comes when you try to use any kind of P2P communication,, which has to somehow find its way through NAT, especially if it's on both sides.

Also, keep in mind that there are no free IPv4 adresses anymore.

LAN ipv4 addresses dont cost a thing. And i said this is more for servers(or in this case a router). than it is anything for consumers.

[bug77]

We do not maintain web servers. To make your kernel cleaner and faster, remove ipv6 support.

Are you competing for an imaginary "the most useless comment of the day"?