Re: Backwards compatibility myth [Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt>]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 2/13/2012 4:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
People say this from time to time, but it's a complete myth.

well, not completely...


IPv4 provides no mechanism whatever for addresses greater than 32 bits.
Therefore, mathematically, there is no possible design for an IP with
bigger addresses that is transparently backwards compatible. We've known
that since at least 1992.


The path that the IETF followed ensured the maximum amount of incompatibility. Really a completely independent stack.

In contrast, the IETF could easily have chose a path toward minimizing incompatibility that would have allowed IPv6 to interwork with IPv4, within the limitations of the v4 address space.

That is, the IETF could begun IPv6 by assigning to it IPv4 addresses, reserving the remainder for latter definition and allocation. It could have targeted simple, basic reformatting at the IP level to permit early IPv6 adoption to require a minimal gateway for interworking with the IPv4 world.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]