Re: US DoD and IPv6

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 10/10/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
A compatible solution would have been better, but I don't think IPv4... --
were designed in a way that permitted a compatible extension.


Oh?

Perhaps:

1. Adopt an IPv6 as Steve Deering originally designed it[1]: A basic upgrade to the IPv4 header, with more address bits, an extensibility mechanisms for adding fields later, and removal of some bits that weren't needed.

2. Define the IPv6 address space as the IPv4 address space, with all zeroes for the higher bits. (In other words, defer more interesting schemes until later.)

   3.  Design header translation devices to map between the two formats.

4. Start fielding these implementations. (That could have started by 1994 or so.)

The "gateways" between v4 and v6 would initially be notably for having almost no work to do and of not losing any information. In particular, barely qualifies as a "dual" stack.

With this approach, "incompatibility" between v4 and v6 would only occur when additional addresses, beyond v4's limitations, start to be assigned.

We must deal with the current reality and make it work, but historical considerations need to factor in the ambitions that dominated during the many years of design.

The community got ambitious in a fashion that smacked of the overreaching that is often called second system syndrome (although counting the Arpanet, this was really a third system...)

d/

[1]  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deering-sip-00
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]