HN

Comments (41)

• Menu

  Isomer
  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.
• petecooper
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8950/
• Menu

  Alifatisk
  I guess the point with this to facilitate usage of IPv6.
• latencyharbor
  [flagged]
• Menu

  ozereray1
  [flagged]
• Menu

  asdfsa32
  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 growinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_transition_mechan...