[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6
Fred Baker wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Michel Py wrote:
>> I would entertain that IPv4+ (which would be a backwards-compatible IPv4
>> with the only difference being an extended address space) would be much
>> more popular as a solution if it was on the table.
> It would make a lot of sense. How, precisely, would you achieve that?
> Recall that the problem there isn't a failure in the design of IPv6;
> it's that IPv4 was not designed to have an extensible address. Roughly
> translated into the King's English, that means "you can't get there from
> here in a reliable fashion."
"I can't get to v6 due to legacy hosts" holds true for anything else
that requires stack changes on legacy hosts... legacy hosts aren't going
to do a+p subidivision for example. the legacy devices have to age out
of the network be replaced or supported within their legacy scope.
windows xp will never use v6 nameservers, that's ok the world will move on.
> The obvious solution would be to put a source and destination AS number
> in options in the IPv4 packet, and in the presence of such a thing route
> to the remote AS before attempting to interpret the address. That's
> essentially what Jim Fleming proposed in his IPv8 model, but he did so
> in a non-backward compatible way. The question I'll ask is how one
> proposes to actually deploy this in a backward compatible fashion. Think
> "Windows 95" and all that.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.