Subject: Re: [arch-d] [Off-topic] Further thoughts: about systems theory and the theory U

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:44:04 -0500 (EST)

> From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

    >> If there's no community will to change IPv6, we're wasting out time.

    > I believe there is will from the IESG/IAB to do whatever it takes.

Alas, I put a lot of weight in David's argument that people will opt for the
most minimal, easiest fix to the most obvious problem.

    > I don't, and I don't think the others in IESG/IAB have either, a magic
    > solution. ...
    > (But I would seriously question whether "change IPv6" is the answer, or
    > at least not the complete answer.)

The thing is, that if you're going for solutions of the form "jack up the
existing internetwork layer and turn it into an end-end naming layer, and
stick a new internetwork layer underneath it", it's probably a lot easier to
jack up IPv4 and stick a new routing layer underneath it.

After all, 2^32 is 4 billion, which is a lot of hosts, and that's how many
distinct names you get out of IPv4 "addresses" if you dole them out serially,
and remove the topological significance. And NAT continues to do its thing,
if we need "more" identifiers.

That way, you don't have to change *any* hosts (including the forklift
upgrade to IPv6). I mean, you're going to have to have zillions of legacy
hosts to deal with anyway, so any solution that works for them is going to
have be be pretty good anyway.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss