Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting and IPv15

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

 



On 8/11/12 10:13 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
One problem with excessively large fields, including variable length
addresses with a high maximum length, is that the next time someone
wants to encode some additional information, they just tuck it inside
that field in some quasi-proprietary way, instead of going to the
trouble of actually adding a field. Witness X.509 Certificate "serial
numbers", which are arbitrary precision integers, but which frequently
are used for a variety of information, all BER encoded...
given various semantic uses of bits within ipv6 addresses that have been proposed or which are used informally even with only 128 bits it's important to make this distinction. a freely extensible bit field will end up with all sorts of garbage in it, that at best is only signficant in one context, and at worse is significant in different fashions in different contexts.

instead of having an locator-id you have a locator-qos-mpls-subscriberid-streetaddress-latlong-id

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
  d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx


On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:22 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Another alternative is self-describing variable-length addresses,
again do it once and we'll never have to worry about it again.
Heretic!  That's OSI speak!  Why do you hate the Internet you ISO/ITU lackey?!?

</flashback>

Yeah, variable-length addresses would have been nice. There was even working code. Maybe next IPng.

Regards,
-drc




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