Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Another +1 from me.
And with respect to the alleged mistake made 15 years ago, two facts
may help:
You are saying it's not post-mortem but vivisection. OK.
2. There is, mathematically and logically, no 'backwards compatible'
IP with bigger addresses than IPv4.
Your statement is unfounded.
Port restricted IP is the mathematical and logical IP with bigger
*APPLICATION* address than IPv4 with full backward compatibility.
So the issue of interworking between legacy
IPv4-only systems and the world of bigger addresses is an
unavoidable fact of the physical universe.
As the address space for transport and application layers is
address+protocol+port, the space is identical with both IPv4 and
port restricted IPv4. Thus, iterworking between IPv4 and PR-IPv4
just works.
Which is why BEHAVE is currently doing NAT64.
With the existence of PR-IPv4, IPv6 including NAT64 is denied,
mathematically and logically.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf