| ▲ | throw0101a 2 hours ago | |
> How I wish we could have a new generation of network engineers who just say "fuck this shit" and build their own internet. And doing so would improve nothing, and be no different than the IPV6 rollout. So you have to ship new code to every 'network element' to support an "IPv4+" protocol. Just like with IPv6. So you have to update DNS to create new resource record types ("A" is hard-coded to 32-bits) to support the new longer addresses, and have all user-land code start asking for, using, and understanding the new record replies. Just like with IPv6. (A lot of legacy code did not have room in data structures for multiple reply types: sure you'd get the "A" but unless you updated the code to get the "A+" address (for "IPv4+" addresses) you could never get to the longer with address… just like IPv6 needed code updates to recognize AAAA, otherwise you were A-only.) You need to update socket APIs to hold new data structures for longer addresses so your app can tell the kernel to send packets to the new addresses. Just like with IPv6. In any 'address extension' plan the legacy code cannot use the new address space; you have to: * update the IP stack (like with IPv6) * tell applications about new DNS records (like IPv6) * set up translation layers for legacy-only code to reach extended-only destination (like IPv6 with DNS64/NAT64, CLAT, etc) You're updating the exact same code paths in both the "IPv4+" and IPv6 scenarios: dual-stack, DNS, socket address structures, dealing with legacy-only code that is never touched to deal with the larger address space. Deploying the new "IPv4+" code will take time, there will partial deployment of IPv4+ is no different than having partial deployment of IPv6: you have islands of it and have to fall back to the 'legacy' IPv4-plain protocol when the new protocol fails to connect: | ||