Re: Variable length internet addresses in TCP/IP: history

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

 



Martin,

> One the one hand, the IETF was frowning upon NATs when they were
> developed outside of the IETF.  But if you look at the IETFs
> (lack of) migration plan, the translation that you need in order
> to make old-IPv4 interoperate with new-IPv6, is actually worse than
> an IPv4 NAT.

I'm sorry, but *any* coexistence between RFC791-IPv4-only hosts and
hosts that are numbered out of an address space greater than 32 bits
requires some form of address sharing, address mapping, and translation.
It doesn't matter what choice we made back in 1994. Once you get to the
point where you've run out of 32 bit addresses and not every node can
support >32 bit addresses, you have the problem.

   Brian
_______________________________________________
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]