Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arubis | Hacker News Reader

I hadn't heard about that proposal; do you have a link to discussion/source? It sounds like a Bad Idea and I'm curious for the arguments in favor.

View on HN

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast...

Thank you. This is wild.

that seems completely insane

that logic has been hard-coded inside every OS and vast amounts of software for 30+ years

and to gain less than 0.8%?

they'd do better targeting the reserved multicast range

> inside every OS and vast amounts of software for 30+ years

Ha. Ha. Ha.

> that logic has been hard-coded inside

The thing is what some things are literally hardcoded. I have a whole bunch of network gear circa 2010 in production.

It does support IPv6, but for the most part it is extremely rudimentary. What do you want from a box what implements SSH by running a telnet session over a no-auth SSH session?

And while I can run the latest Windows/Linux/Whatever on my server gear, the network gear is not that simple to upgrade.

>I have a whole bunch of network gear circa 2010 in production

I ran into this 10 years ago. I decided to roll out IPv6 to clients. Router docs said it was supported. Then I watched CPU usage peg because every packet hit the CPU. Turns out it was implemented in software; no ASIC support. Was quite the buzz kill.

Now consider that there are network components in the wild that have literal latch on first octet equaling 127 which triggers packet drop, and this proposal could drop hw acceleration for v4 too

> they'd do better targeting the reserved multicast range

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast...

What in the actual eff. Anything except actually switching fully to ipv6, amirite?

Trying to see the most charitable position here - is there an aspect in which redefining 127/8 to 127/16 across billions of devices is actually feasible?

I used to work tech support for an ISP years ago.... Trying to get people to find their modem and see if it was plugged into the wall was effort.

Imagine trying to get the same people to upgrade router firmware...... no chance

I assume that most ISPs push out updates automatically unless the hardware is user provided (and thus user supported)? I've been through several rounds of "we're sending you a new router" with UK ISPs where you're aggressively reminded to switch.

This is why the ISP routers and modems have all introduced remote updates from the ISP, sometimes going further with extra telemetry[0]. Not a great situation for those with the technical knowledge, but I don't think we can expect people to upgrade their router FW on their own.

0: https://old.reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/mqfy9a/just_got_our_ne...

I was pissed to learn that arris DOCSIS modems do not allow you, the owner, to install firmware updates or adjust most settings. Only the ISP gets to do that.

That's because bandwidth caps are enforced by the cable modem and not further downstream. When you pay for 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, that is enforced by the cable modem.

Earlier versions of cable modems had flaws that allowed consumers to push configs on the ethernet port and uncap their cable modems and gain higher speeds than they had paid for.

Yep, what a silly design. I almost want to hack it out of spite.

If the ISP could add a paragraph to their T&C's, then monitor the speed...

"Thank you for upgrading your service to our VVVIP Price Tier! Your first three months as a VVVIP customer is 50% off..."

>If the ISP could add a paragraph to their T&C's, then monitor the speed...

They did, but the overhead at the time was high. And they generally didn't peruse unless you were causing trouble....or slipped up on OPSEC.

Cable ISP network security back in the day was horrid. SNMP string would get leaked. With that you could snmpwalk the entire node you were on. It was amusing.

That is true, there are people who use an ISP modem/router but what of the ones who don't, what of the android TV or phone is that doesn't get updates, what of that winxp/vista/7 computer that won't be upgraded.......?

There are so many other devices out there that are required for this change to work, it is insane to think it could be done.

> Imagine trying to get the same people to upgrade router firmware...... no chance

Which is why there are technical standards for the ISP to do it from their end:

> Technical Report 069 (TR-069) is a technical specification of the Broadband Forum that defines an application layer protocol for remote management and provisioning of customer-premises equipment (CPE) connected to an Internet Protocol (IP) network. TR-069 uses the CPE WAN Management Protocol (CWMP) which provides support functions for auto-configuration, software or firmware image management, software module management, status and performance managements, and diagnostics.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069

(At least on ISP-issued CPE.)

The router is the least of your problems. Consider all the devices connected to those routers which don't recognize 127/8 addresses as anything but loopback—some of which may never receive updates at all, never mind actually getting people to install them.

A slightly more insane but maybe a bit more practical would have been to try to move 10.x and friends into 127.x.

Ohh wow - I didn't think there were any serious proposals for this, this sounds like madness.

  Expires: 12 May 2022

I couldn't find a newer edition, so hopefully this has gone to the great standards track in the sky.

Here's a newer edition! :) https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast...

  Expires: 8 September 2022

Reply on news.ycombinator.com