ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

2007-10-09 10:03:20

On Oct 9, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:

is it provable that no design for a follow-on to IPv4 would have provided that backward compatibility?


Hi Ralph,

I don't know about 'provable', but there's a strong argument as to why that's challenging.

Any new design would have necessarily required more bits to address more end systems. Making legacy systems interact with these additional addressing bits without some form of gateway, NAT or other translation would indeed be challenging. You're literally trying to expand the size of the namespace that a legacy implementation will recognize.


And, I guess I'll stop here as I'm rehashing a train that long ago left the station...


While the train has left the station, it seems like it can still be modified while in motion.

Tony

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf