RFC-2001-06-24-000 - 2001 A Space Odyssey
"Because it may be desirable to reserve one or more link numbers for
instrumentation purposes, and because 256 link numbers are many more
than are needed, we suggest that no link number over 63 be used. At
UCLA, we will implement our tables to take advantage of this limitation.
We also note that 32 may be even more realistic, but 64 is certainly
RFC-2001-06-27-001 - Obtaining IPv8 Address Allocations
The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
IPv16 is the "high-ground"....
...here are some links...
Mars 128n 128e
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking"
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <salo(_at_)SALOITS(_dot_)COM>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Hist Trivia] IP Protocol Layers
At 02:19 PM 7/17/2001, Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking wrote:
I think TCP and IP were all one layer at one point. It's possible
the old IEN's, (which I'd heard would be on-line "soon" if
That is my understanding, too: In the beginning there was only TCP.
During on-going discussions between the ARPA research and the Xerox PARC
research folks, the need for separating out IP functionality became
I don't know the dates for this architectural transition.
Transport (TCP, UDP)
Internet (IP, etc.)
Network Interface (LAN and WAN technologies).
The idea of intermediate "upper" layers has periodically been
played with in the Internet realm, such as with XDR and RPC, and again
recently with BEEP. A range of efforts that standardize on an application
infrastructure, such as with XML, encourage viewing this as a real
architectural enhancement. Hence we probably need to wedge a layer between
transport and applications. I prefer to call it session; others will
likely prefer presentation.
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464