Thank you for publishing it, please post also in your social accounts.
Thank you for publishing it, please post also in your social accounts.
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2020-April/003902.html
"At the source BGP router, for any ip packet with a source address
that is from the network of the source BGP router (lets call it
original ip packet) - the source BGP router will create a new ip
packet "
How long have you been around Elad? I expect such ideas from a junior
network engineer. It's part of the learning process.
For example, in this case it's dysfunctional for an intermediate
router that may be on one of several equal-cost paths to hold packets
awaiting their companions. Even if you found a way to embed the
information in the base packet, backbone-level routers simply don't
have the capacity to do complex security evaluations (e.g. encryption)
on individual packets. The cost of changing that would be phenomenal.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
I don’t have the experience that you have in routing equipment internals.
Regarding the performance issue in routers of complex security evaluations - maybe the following alternative will be fine:
The “source BGP router” will add the ASN of it (in clear text) to the end of ip packet data field (after two null bytes), the total length and checksum fields in the ip header will be recalculated.
Any next BGP router will check the last bits of the ip packet data which are after the last two null bytes for any ip packet - then if that part (from the two null bytes to the end) doesn’t contain a null byte in it then these bytes are representing the first ASN, the BGP router will check that it peers with the specific ASN, if not the ip packet will be dropped. If yes - at the end of the ip packet data field a null byte will be added by the BGP router with the ASN (in cleartext) of that second BGP router, then the third BGP router (and so on) will check last ASN in the ip packet data (after the null byte) - if it peers with it - and if yes will replace that ASN with the current BGP router ASN and so on (so the end of the ip packet data field will include: two null bytes, the “source BGP router” ASN, a null byte, and then the ASN of the last BGP router), when the ip packet will reach to the “destination BGP router”, the “destination BGP router” will check if the source address is announced through the first ASN (which is at listed at the ip packet data field) within a local table that it will have, and if yes then the part in the ip packet data field after the last two null bytes will be removed and the ip packet will be forwarded to the destination ip address.
How do you solve for all the devices that don’t have vendor support and will no longer be able to operate? Or are you suggesting we run a third Internet ( IPv4, IPv4+ and IPv6) further segregating the things that can communicate on the Internet.
Only active BGP routers will need to be updated, EOL active BGP routers can be reversed engineered and patched if they are popular enough (for example if spoofed DDoS amplification attacks are causing yearly damages of $100M per year in the world and these EOL equipment cost $50M in the world, it might be worth to replace them)
Peace,
A degree in economics is not needed to know that if the damages of something is causing x2 the amount that can be spent to avoid the damages - then half of the amount should be spent.
Peace,
You start your posts with Peace but your posts are full of hate.
What makes you think that companies are going to spend money and time on your “solution” when they’re having to be dragged kicking and screaming to fully enable IPv6 to every endpoint on their networks?
Most places already OWN IPv6 capable routers/equipment, they’re just either being lazy in setting it up (“no reason to” excuse) or there’s not enough customer demand for them to take the time.
You don’t seem to have a firm grasp on WHY IPv6 adoption is taking so long.
NANOG Staff member that is granted the privilege of reading the list and ensuring all folks adhere to the Usage Guidelines of the list here…
Please note this thread is off topic from the subject line.
If people on the list would like to continue a discussion about IPv4, IPv4+ and IPv6, please do so under a new thread and ensure you follow Usage Guidelines.
Thank you.
Valerie
Valerie Wittkop - NANOG Program Director
305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100, Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Tel: +1 866 902 1336, ext 103
Can this slap fight go somewhere besides this list?
At the moment this is exactly what happen, but companies are buying IPv4+, when they can receive them for free with IPv4+.
In general, such a statement, although misleading, is not wrong. However, having the knowledge ordinarily associated with such a degree definitely helps a lot with the understanding you need to comprehend the matters the degree would cover.
That statement makes no sense. Everyone also get free IPv6 and almost everyone have equipment that can do IPv6. All anyone has to do is configure his free IPv6.
tor. 14. maj 2020 01.56 skrev Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io>:
The public will decide.
You just reminded me to vote. Thanks!
I don’t see hate. I see legitimate technical disagreement with your hair-brained schemes.
Perhaps, when a large collection of people with actual engineering experience and deep knowledge tell you that you are simply wrong on legitimate technical grounds, it would be wiser to rethink your position than to accuse them of bigotry and hatred.
Just a thought.
Owen
Me:
“A degree in economics is not needed to know that if the damages of something is causing x2 the amount that can be spent to avoid the damages - then half of the amount should be spent.”
Toma:
A degree in economics is not needed […]
“Which is the common thing to say by the ones who don’t have it.”
You:
“simply wrong on legitimate technical grounds”
You are not a bigotry or hatred, you are just an imbecile.
[snip]
[snip]
This is at least the third time you’ve called me an imbecile on this list, though the first time you’ve spelled it correctly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile
Since I don’t meet any of the technical or scientific definitions previously used for the term, I can only assume that you intend it in its vernacular meaning as a derogatory remark which amounts to ad hominem attacks prohibited by list policy.
Unless it is your goal to be moderated and/or removed from the list, I suggest you stick to arguing the merits (or rather lack thereof) of your position and cease the ad hominem attacks.
Owen