On Dec 14, 2015 8:30 AM, "Masataka Ohta" <mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Alexey Eromenko wrote:
>
> > I have created a new Internet Protocol "Five Fields".
> >
> > Why ?
> > Because IPv6 is hard to use, and I wanted to keep look & feel similar
> > to IPv4. Problem with IPv6, is that those addresses are very hard for
> > humans to remember, compare and visualize topologies in human brain.
> > IPv4 has great look & feel, but it is exhausted. So
>
> So, use NAT to enjoy 48 bit addressing, may be with class E.
>
> You can still enjoy full end to end transparency for applications
> over TCP/UDP through UPnP capable NAT boxes.
I thought about extending port ranges to 32-bit, but it invites a massive Carrier-Grade NATs. Lets call it Large variants of TCP and UDP. TCP.L and UDP.L.
Besides, all the middle boxes will need to be replaced with those new protocols, just like with IPFF.
But the good news, is that NAT is fully supported in IPFF.
> > - x230,000 times larger address space than IPv4 (should be enough for
> > several hundred years, including IoT)
>
> If 48 bit space by NAT is not large enough, the least painful
> way to extend it is to make port numbers 32 bit long.
>
> > -Simpler to implement than IPv4/v6, because no fragmentation. MTU path
> > discovery is the way to go.
>
> That's as bad as IPv6.
>
Look, for most links, fragmentation and checksums slow down Core Router processing (those big boxes doing 100 Gigs per port).
With those features removed, routers can become faster.
And with fragmentation removed embedded devices and new IPFF implementations can be simpler.
The downsides for fragmentation? Narrow links.
As for narrow links, like IEEE 802.15.something, they are too narrow to be useful with fragmentation. It allows only (128?) Bytes natively, while TCP/IP header alone is 40 bytes. Do you suggest supporting links with 30% overhead ?
I think such links need to develop "layer 2.5", to allow bigger packets.
IPv4 doesn't do it either, defining minimum MTU at 576 bytes.
> > -No broadcasts.
>
> That's as bad as IPv6.
>
Why is it bad ? IPFF defines a new mode: "silent multicast", which is somewhere between tradional Multicast and Broadcast. I.e it is being flooded at layer 2 to all, but every node can filter it at layer 2, 3 or 4. It doesn't require IGMP advertising. It is a more efficient version of Broadcast, if you will.
Written in IPFF addressing architecture spec.
> > -No autoconfiguration/SLAAC (this belongs to DHCP territory)
> > -No IGMP required (it is optional now for Multicasts)
>
> You do better than IPv6, here.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>