Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 7, 2014 16:07 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
In reply to: Networking on tiny machines by stefanha
Parent article: Networking on tiny machines

Didn't the old ka9q implement a full TCP/IP stack (as well as SLIP)? How much memory did that need?

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 7, 2014 16:21 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (24 responses)

I'm sure what's considered a "full" TCP/IP stack changes over time, for example I would consider IPv6 and cryptographically secure sequence numbers to be mandatory now.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 7, 2014 17:01 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (23 responses)

I'm not sure I would; much as we would wish the world to use IPv6 everywhere by now, it does not; and if you assume that anything important will be encrypted higher up the stack, then TCP sequence number spoofing is only a DoS attack, and there are plenty of those to pick from anyway.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 8, 2014 4:05 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (22 responses)

If you want to be able to do the 'smart dust' type thing then ipv6 is going to be needed. Or something else other then Ipv4, at the very least. In fact it may be more useful in the long run to look at striping out ipv4 support altogether. And it's not a 'long long run'... more like 3-5 years long run.

"cryptographically secure sequence" addresses is a bit suspect. Does anybody actually use that stuff? Randomized addresses is much more accommodating to the 'small system' meme, though. No need to figure out any address, just find the network address and pick a number at random. Couldn't be any simpler.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 8, 2014 7:22 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (19 responses)

> In fact it may be more useful in the long run to look at striping out ipv4 support altogether. And it's not a 'long long run'... more like 3-5 years long run.

I don't know. Internal corporate networks are moving even slower than I thought possible. RFC1918 addresses are ubiquitous and plentiful.

For consumer connections IPv6 is going to be necessary just due to the number of devices, but if you can hide an entire business behind a handful of IPs and use RFC1918 internally... I think the transition is going to take much longer, if ever in that context.

At home, I have a handful of devices using DHCP, switching to IPv6 is simple. At work I have dozens of machines, all talking to each other on RFC1918 addresses, which don't need to talk to the outside world, why would I ever switch? And if you do need something from the internet, HTTP proxies satisfy almost every need.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 8, 2014 13:43 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (17 responses)

>RFC1918 addresses are ubiquitous and plentiful.
Plentiful they are not.

There's really just one usable /8 which might look much, but once you start allocating addresses from it for a company with multiple sites and try to do VPN for remote access, it's almost inevitable that you'll have collisions with many CPEs.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 8, 2014 19:04 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (16 responses)

I know that Comcast, and I am guessing other people with very large networks, has had to come up with a schemes for internal NAT'ng and tunnels that involved tunneling IPv4 over IPv4 because they need multiple 10.0.0.0/8 networks to be able to address all their subnets and equipment.

Once you run out of IPv4 private addresses things start to get really ugly really quick.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 8, 2014 19:25 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (15 responses)

Nope, Comcast simply got additional public IPs for their internal control plane: http://www.ipv4depletion.com/?p=493

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 9, 2014 1:23 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (14 responses)

I don't think that lasted very long, then. 2010 is a very long time ago when it comes to internet addresses.

Nowadays I think that it's most likely Comcast, and probably others, have gone dual stack with IPv4 tunneling over IPv6. That's the most sane solution and it opens up those big blocks IPv4 space to be leased to customers.

For people that don't want to go that route there is always 'NAT444'.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/45776

Public IPv4 being NAT'd to private IPv4 networks using other private IPv4 networks. Given my experiences with my phone and various protocols on 'WAN' networks I can guess which direction many of the phone carriers decided to go.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 9, 2014 2:50 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (13 responses)

Carrier grade NAT is a reality in Europe and Asia, and I have no doubt we'll be seeing it implemented in the US in due course.

Someone like government or Google/Facebook with a lot of IP space and basically a key component of the internet needs to step up and move completely to IPV6 and force everyone's hand. If major groups moved their services to IPv6 and refused to provide ipv4 services it could start the landslide that shifted the entire internet. If it's going to ever happen it needs to start soon because there is still a lot of equipment out there that's not ipv6 compatible.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 9, 2014 7:56 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (6 responses)

so you are saying that some critical part of the internet should make itself inaccessible to 90%+ [1] of the internet for some unknown timeframe (but probably years) to force everyone to upgrade.

somehow I think that the competiton would just step in and the company would go out of business in the meantime.

[1] last I heard, IPv6 traffic is somewhere in the 3-6% range, and every network stack I've heard of uses IPv6 in preference to IPv4 if it works

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 9, 2014 8:24 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (4 responses)

last I heard, IPv6 traffic is somewhere in the 3-6% range

3.01% by latest Google's estimate. But it's grows quite strongly: the same time last year it barely crossed 1% mark.

It's well-known fact that Internet only just works. This time (as every time previosly) all attempts to postpone the switch were used in the very same way they were used in the past: to push switch back few years and do nothing in the meanwhile.

Only when screams “Aaargh. I need, really need XX IPv4 addresses or else my whole company will go down in flames” started getting calm “Oh, I'm so sorry that your company is going down in flames. Nice weather, isn't it?” response people started switching en-masse to IPv6.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 9, 2014 8:31 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)

3% is hardly "people started switching en-masse" That's still in the "early adopters" combined with a little bit of "people don't realize they're using it" where some network people setup IPv6 because "it's the right thing to do" (as opposed to any push from the users)

now, if your last paragraph was written in future mode rather than in past tense, then I could possibly agree with you. But I think that there is a LOT more room for 'temporary' fixes (including sales of IPv4 addresses) in the meantime.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 9, 2014 10:47 UTC (Fri) by jem (subscriber, #24231) [Link]

Check out the numbers on https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/

The growth is steady, and there is a chance the for the global percentage to jump to 6-7 before the end of the year. The 3 % figure is for the whole Internet; the percentages for some countries are much bigger, e.g. USA 7.14%, Germany 8.38%, France 5.23%, Belgium 16.93%.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 10, 2014 14:12 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

> 3% is hardly "people started switching en-masse"

It's not en-masse but it's millions: enough to prove it works on a massive scale.

> That's still in the "early adopters" combined with a little bit of "people don't realize they're using it"

I think the vast majority of people start using IPv6 when their ISP (and new Android version...) starts, which means they indeed don't even realize it.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 27, 2014 15:32 UTC (Tue) by krakensden (subscriber, #72039) [Link]

Comcast claims they're up to 16%:

http://www.comcast6.net/index.php/8-ipv6-trial-news-and-i...

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 13, 2014 0:33 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

You are correct abandoning ipv4 isn't the right course, in retrospect what I should have said was more along the lines of popping up a big scary warning that tells the user to call their ISP.

I'm sure half their users calling support because Google told them their is something wrong with their internet would do two things, the first is make the ISP hate Google with a passion and the second is cause the ISP to ensure ipv6 is implemented and being used in preference to ipv4.

It's frustrating for me because I'm on Comcast business, just a month ago I finally got a free modem upgrade to support Docsis 3 and ipv6 (I had to specifically request this upgrade), when I inquired about ipv6 support which their own tools say are fully deployed on my CMTS I was told it's in beta on the business side and the beta is closed. That Beta was open to users last year. In other words the only way I can use ipv6 is if I had a modem that supported it and I requested to be part of a "beta" a year ago when I didn't have a modem that supported it. I'd take sweet relish in Google or Facebook doing that to Comcast.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 9, 2014 15:43 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (5 responses)

> moved their services to IPv6 and refused to provide ipv4 services

That's not going to happen, not now not ever. That's just not how the world works.

> Google/Facebook with a lot of IP space and basically a key component of the internet needs to step up and move completely to IPV6

This has pretty much happened, both Google and Facebook are dual-stack for their public facing properties, as are some of the major CDNs, Netflix and YouTube as well. There is a long tail of IPv4-only services that will exist for the next decade or two but all the highest traffic services are ready and waiting for clients to convert over.

> there is still a lot of equipment out there that's not ipv6 compatible

Not true of end-user devices like computers and phones but is true for many consumer routers, even though the cable DOCSIS 3 standard mandates IPv6 support for the modem, a lot of routers will have to be replaced (good business opportunity for router makers really, hopefully we can shoe-horn CoDel in the new deployment as well)

> Carrier grade NAT is a reality

Even my organization is moving forward with a large NAT system but we are tying the deployment of NAT with the deployment of IPv6 because everything which routes directly (all the most popular web properties mentioned above) doesn't have to go through the NAT which greatly reduces the expense of it.

I expect these two factors to drive IPv6 for home users, it should be cheaper for ISPs to provision than expanding the NAT and it should be lower latency for customers where that matters like VoIP and gaming.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 10, 2014 14:17 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (4 responses)

> I expect these two factors to drive IPv6 for home users, it should be cheaper for ISPs to provision than expanding the NAT and it should be lower latency for customers where that matters like VoIP and gaming.

Peer to peer.

The one thing that crazy/triple NATs break is peer to peer.

I would only take a couple of successful peer-to-peer applications (think Napster, Skype, some decentralized game,...) to force ISPs to implement IPv6.

So what is very effectively delaying IPv6 (forever?) is... "cloud computing".

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 27, 2014 15:34 UTC (Tue) by krakensden (subscriber, #72039) [Link] (3 responses)

> some decentralized game

Many multiplayer console games- like Call of Duty- are, it saves on hosting costs. It's mostly invisible to the players though.

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 27, 2014 15:54 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (2 responses)

So, "carrier-grade NAT" (really need to find a more appropriate name for this kludge, preferably a funny one) is doomed?

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 27, 2014 16:41 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (1 responses)

Maybe "[aircraft] carrier-sized gnat" problems?

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 27, 2014 16:49 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Hmm... And guided high-velocity ammunition seems to be a great solution for both of them!

Networking on tiny machines

Posted May 8, 2014 14:39 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

I would think that any devices which need to communicate with the new "smart dust" would have IPv6 as an available feature, there are very few devices which aren't IPv6 capable, just many which don't currently have IPv6 enabled. It makes more sense to build toward the future than the past.

sequence numbers

Posted May 8, 2014 17:13 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (1 responses)

The cryptographically secure sequence numbers aren't for addressing, they're to avert an attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_sequence_prediction_attack

So yes, people use that. You would presumbly be able to do without it on a closed network, but then again, strictly speaking you could choose to do without TCP/IP altogether on such a network. Diverging too far from normal risks losing most of the benefits of choosing TCP/IP in the first place.

sequence numbers

Posted May 8, 2014 19:00 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Ok. Thanks for the correction. I was thinking you were referring to one of the more esoteric ipv6 addressing schemes.