Re: Backwards compatibility myth [Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt>]
> 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.
i guess you forget the discussion of variable length. i hope we don't
have to rehash it here.
decisions were made. some were quite bad. v6 had some real zingers.
remember tla/nla? no feature parity, such as dhcp (a war which has not
finished)? it is almost as if it was designed to fail.
randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[IETF Annoucements]
[IETF Obscurity Interest]
[IETF]
[IP Storage]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux]
[Pilates]
[Linux SCTP]
[Linux Newbies]
[Fedora Users]