The point of V8 was that all existing V4 clients are still 100% compatible -- all of the magic is in the routers and gateways that know about the V8 extensions.

For everything else, as long as the TTL fields returned from the DNS lookups are honored, everything just works.

Only the gateways between the universe would need to have tracked what's what, and only to the extent that they are tracking what they issue out. It's as scalable as NAT.

... How?

How do you get to "it'll take hours"?

Advantages: 100% compatible with V4.
100% extensible to multiple planet-sized, or country-sized, networks.

Disadvantages: Lacks the concept of a globally unique address.

But if dual-stack is the expected norm, that kinda makes the "push to move everyone to v6 to solve the network address issue" a bit of a fail.

I thought one of the goals of the v6 addressing space, at least initially, was that there would be a "v4 compatibility" built into the V6 addressing space, at least for some sense of local addresses -- so that you could talk to a v4 device that was on the same local network.

You mention that there is a NAT64, and I can make some guesses as to how it operates, at least if the V6 machine is initiating the connection. You also mention that there are multiple ways to make this work; so why not have a single standard that works?

What ever happened to the IP V8 protocol?

This was a system that would have extended the V4 addressing system in a manner that scaled. Really scaled.

The fundamental idea is that there are multiple different V4 addressing pools.
When you ask for the address of a host, you do not automatically get the address of the host. You get a cookie that can be used to reach the host, with a short timeout (perhaps a few hours).

Now, if you are on the same v4 pool, that cookie may very well be the host's address (And even have the normal TTL). Otherwise, it's a cookie that tells the network how to route to a gateway router that knows where to send it next -- either to another gateway router, or to the destination if you are at the final v4 pool.

Never mind the big questions: why do programs have to deal with "get_host_by_name()" at all (never mind a DNS system that needs to return two pieces of information -- address and TTL -- and a calling convention that can only return a single datum and most programs assuming an infinite TTL anyways); why do programs have to deal with a struct sock_addr at all; why do programs not just say 'open("net://example.com:3327", O_RW)', and get a file descriptor that can be read and written like any other file descriptor. The people behind v8 concluded early that that level of change was beyond what could be pushed, and compatibility with older programs that didn't do this was a design goal. (Never mind that when I participated -- early -- in the v6 mailing lists and brought up this same issue, I was told that the goal of v6 was to get a 64 bit version of v4 with all its warts and known problems as soon as possible for business reasons).

Today, we have NAT's as a very, very common way of doing half of this sort of routing.
Today, if you want to talk to someone behind a NAT, you are using a cookie that is half the NAT's IP, and half the port number -- with the restriction that initiating connections from outside is highly restricted.

V8 -- gateways and special routers -- is a system that is extensible. Does China want a real network firewall? Then take an entirely separate address space. Does Mars Colony want to control the expensive bandwidth to Earth? Heck, why can't Mars operate it's own network independently -- fighting for rights (and no longer being effectively slaves to the corporations that built the place two generations back) was hard enough, why does Earth still control Mars' data network?

So first, a question: Can v4 devices talk to v6 devices?

If I have an older device, such as a printer, that can only talk v4, then in order to talk to it, I need a v4 address.
Given that there will be some devices out there that can only talk v4, then there needs to be some way for v4 machines to talk to v6 machines.

So, is it possible for a v6 host to initiate a connection to a v4 device by using some magic prefix to indicate "the bottom 4 bytes contain a v4 address, and you, router, are supposed to pretend that you are talking v4 using that"?

If so, the next question is: when the v4 device wants to respond, what does it put into it's destination IP field to get back to the v6 device?

If I cannot talk to a v4-only device from a v6-only host, then I need to have a mixed 4/6 machine.

The need for routers to be able to translate between v4 and v6 to support old hardware leads into the question about V8.

No, if you did deeper, you'll find the horrors that Jon Pertwee's Doctor was trying to save us from, by stopping the crust penetrating drill.

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

You want to stick a candle that burns at both ends into the sun.

Aim at another sun.

Someone want to link the Schlock Mercenary strip where a bunch of idiot AI's steered a gas giant into another gas giant by doing this?

Same here! I can only reply to existing messages, and cannot otherwise comment on my own videos.

And that is *AFTER* upgrading to stupid forced-social share-your-details stupidity -- before that I could not do anything without making a brand-new account just for replying to youtube.

Where was this treaty visible to the public during negotiations?

This treaty may be horrible. But just like more well-known free-trade treaties, it seems like we are just now finding out about it, after it is too late to do anything to change it.

*THAT* is what has to change.

The Tor protocol *is* the problem.

Tor says "I will use one encrypted channel, and send your data out that one channel, regardless of its speed".

Not "I will borrow from IP. I will open many encrypted channels, and send packets of data out each channel. The end node will re-assemble data from those channels. We will use the IP protocol to retransmit lost packets over each channel.".

IP, even though it is physically 1 channel, pretends to be 8 channels that each can transmit one packet. Something very similar to this could be used, and then if you have a slow link, that one slow channel only sends a small number of packets.

Tor *relies* on high volume to mask individual traffic. The only way to get high traffic is to make it "fast enough". With the default behavior, that any node can be an intermediary, any channel may wind up with a slow node in the middle, and then suddenly speed is lost. When speed is lost, people stop using Tor.

That is problem number one with Tor.

Problem 2 with Tor is less obvious. It claims to know what kind of anonymity you want. If all I want is to hide who I am talking to / what I am saying from my direct eavesdropper (my ISP, the local wireless hotspot), then all I need is to talk to one intermediary. Tor forces 2. There's good reasons to require 2 if I want full privacy, but maybe I don't.

If I want to split my communication into many streams, and have it re-assembled, then there must be lots of one-intermediary-hop streams.
That's good enough to stop my ISP from spying on me.
The normal encryption is good enough to stop the wireless hotspot people from watching me.

For 80%+ of usage (probably closer to 95%), that's sufficient.
Requiring more means slower.

Design a protocol so that none of the node can tell if you are using a 2-hop or a 3-hop system.
The entry nodes cannot tell if they are talking to the originator or to another node. (I think Tor fails this -- the first hop uses a different protocol than the rest, as I understand it).
The intermediates cannot tell if they are talking to first and last hops, or another intermediate.

Many years ago, I tried explaining this on the Tor discussion lists, and did a bad job of explaining it.
The last time I checked, the Tor people wanted a security analysis of all proposals.
And the one thing I know for certain is that I am incapable/incompetent at that.

I was taught that very high speeds came with very short wires, and getting chips faster than about 5 GHz meant that you could not even have external support chips, never mind the constant wait for memory to respond and sitting around idle at the inevitable cache failures if you went faster.

Hence, the push from Intel, etc., to massive numbers of cores rather than faster cores as transistors shrank farther.

Leia: "Han, stop shooting first! We need to interrogate someone".
(I think that's the quote from Darths and Droids)

"That'ssss a very nice memory you have there, it would be a shame if ssssomething happened to it"

_General_ Binks is the most capable person the pro-republic forces have. Darths and Droids for citation.

The question is not, who did the electoral college vote for.

The question is, who did the states send to the electoral college.

I thought the FCC *did* file a suit against Cardholder Services for that junk. What happened?