logoalt Hacker News

RFC8950: Announce IPv4 with an IPv6 next-hop

44 points • by porridgeraisin • today at 1:38 PM • 17 comments • view on HN

Comments

Isomer • today at 4:57 PM

I don't understand why you can't have any protocol that can (potentially recursively) resolve to a layer 2 address as a next hop.

v4 route with v6 next hop? Seems reasonable. v6 route with v4 next hop? Why not? v4/v6 route with a mac address as a next hop? Trivial. v4/v6 route with a DNS next hop? Could be recursively resolved to a v4/v6 address, and then potentially recursively resolved to a MAC address. I wouldn't recommend it, but sure. v4/v6 route with a netbeui name as a next hop? You appear to be mad, but I'm not going to be the one to stand in your way.

➕ show 1 reply
Alifatisk • today at 3:15 PM

I guess the point with this to facilitate usage of IPv6.

➕ show 4 replies
latencyharbor • today at 4:21 PM

[flagged]

ozereray1 • today at 3:21 PM

RFC 8950 is quietly useful for operators who want to drop IPv4 addresses from point-to-point links and run an IPv6-only fabric while still carrying IPv4 routes over BGP. How well is it supported in practice across vendors and open-source routing daemons like FRR and BIRD?

➕ show 1 reply
asdfsa32 • today at 4:22 PM

A few more RFCs, a few more IP over IP bandaid, a few more extensions, and we will get there. By God IPv6 is a stain in the history of computer science.

IPv6 should have really just worked like NAT/IP over IP on IPv4 hardware and fast path on IPv6 hardware. But instead we got a monster that keeps growing with things like NAT64, 4over6, DS-Lite, MAP-E, and now BGP stopgaps and a growing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_transition_mechan...

➕ show 2 replies