On Oct 10, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/10/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
A compatible solution would have been better, but I don't think IPv4... --
were designed in a way that permitted a compatible extension.
Oh?
Perhaps:
1. Adopt an IPv6 as Steve Deering originally designed it[1]: A basic
upgrade to the IPv4 header, with more address bits, an extensibility
mechanisms for adding fields later, and removal of some bits that weren't
needed.
2. Define the IPv6 address space as the IPv4 address space, with all
zeroes for the higher bits. (In other words, defer more interesting schemes
until later.)
3. Design header translation devices to map between the two formats.
4. Start fielding these implementations. (That could have started by 1994
or so.)
The "gateways" between v4 and v6 would initially be notably for having almost
no work to do and of not losing any information. In particular, barely
qualifies as a "dual" stack.
With this approach, "incompatibility" between v4 and v6 would only occur when
additional addresses, beyond v4's limitations, start to be assigned.
We must deal with the current reality and make it work, but historical
considerations need to factor in the ambitions that dominated during the many
years of design.
The community got ambitious in a fashion that smacked of the overreaching
that is often called second system syndrome (although counting the Arpanet,
this was really a third system...)
Dear Dave;
Not being directly involved at the time, I have always wondered this :
Was it second system syndrome, or was a slowness to realize that the time to
drastically change the system increased from
months to (effective) infinity somewhere between 1988 and 1994 ?
Regards
Marshall
d/
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deering-sip-00
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf