Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Seems to me that the real problem is the 1500 byte MTU that hasn't increased in practice in over 40 years.

As per a sibling comment, 1500 is just for Ethernet (the default, jumbo frames being able to go to (at least) 9000). But the Internet is more than just Ethernet.

If you're on DSL, then RFC 2516 states that PPPoE's MTU is 1492 (and you probably want an MSS of 1452). The PPP, L2TP, and ATM AAL5 standards all have 16-bit length fields allowing for packets up 64k in length. GPON ONT MTU is 2000. The default MTU for LTE is 1428. If you're on an HPC cluster, there's a good chance you're using Infiniband, which goes to 4096.

What are size do you suggest everyone on the planet go to? Who exactly is going to get everyone to switch to the new value?




> What are size do you suggest everyone on the planet go to?

65536

> Who exactly is going to get everyone to switch to the new value?

The same people who got everyone to switch to IPv6. It's a missed opportunity that these migrations weren't done at the same time imho.

It'll take a few decades, sure, but that's how big migrations go. What's the alternative? Making no improvements at all, forever?


> got everyone to switch to IPv6

I have some bad news...

> What's the alternative? Making no improvements at all, forever?

No, sadly. The alternative is what the entire tech world has been doing for the past 15 years: shove "improvements" inside whatever crap we already have because nobody wants to replace the crap.

If IPv6 were made today, it would be tunneled inside an HTTP connection. All the new apps would adopt it, the legacy apps would be abandoned or have shims made, and the whole thing would be inefficient and buggy, but adopted. Since poking my head outside of the tech world and into the wider world, it turns out this is how most of the world works.


>If IPv6 were made today, it would be tunneled inside an HTTP connection. All the new apps would adopt it, the legacy apps would be abandoned or have shims made, and the whole thing would be inefficient and buggy, but adopted. Since poking my head outside of the tech world and into the wider world, it turns out this is how most of the world works.

What you're suggesting here wouldn't work, wrapping all the addressing information inside HTTP which relies on IP for delivery does not work. It would be the equivalent of sealing all the addressing information for a letter you'd like to send inside the envelope.


> If IPv6 were made today, it would be tunneled inside an HTTP connection.

Given that one of the primary goals of IPv6 was increased address space, how would putting IPv6 in an HTTP connection riding over IPv4 solve that?


Providers would just do Carrier-grade NAT (as they do today) or another wonky solution with a tunnel into different networks as needed. IPv6 is still useful in different circumstances, particularly creating larger private networks. They could basically reimplement WireGuard, with the VPN software doubling as IPv6 router and interface provider. I'm not saying this is a great idea, but it is definitely what someone today would have done (with HTTP as the transport method) if IPv6 didn't exist.


The internet is mostly ethernet these days (ISP core/edge), last mile connections like DSL and cable already handle a smaller MTU so should be fine with a bigger one.


> The internet is mostly ethernet these days […]

Except for the bajillion mobile devices in people's pockets/purses.


> The internet is mostly ethernet these days (ISP core/edge),

A lot of that ISP edge is CPEs with WiFi, which AFAIK limits the MTU to 2304 bytes.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: