The latest

Jim and all,

Jim Fleming wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, June 26, 1997 1:07 PM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] wrote:
> <snip>
> @ >
> @ > IPv8 will not help you...yet. Besides, IF (a big IF) you
> @ > are able to obtain some IPv4 addresses, you will be
> @ > able to upgrade those to IPv8 addresses when the time
> @ > comes.
> @
> @   Well I had already figured that IPv4 addresses would
> @ be upgradable.  It seems to me that maybe IPV6 space
> @ should not be a problem to get.  Comments?
> 
> IPv6 has 128 bit addresses. They are overkill.

  Hummmm?  I am not sure that I believe they are
overkill, but I see your point.  
> 
> There is already a mess, because an address space
> that large encourages people to be wasteful and makes
> it attractive to overload addresses with service attributes
> much like the multicasting mess.

  This could however be managed is done properly.  But yes,
there is always this possibility.  
> 
> IPv8 addresses only have 43 bits, but those bits were
> carefully engineered and they fit into the same size and
> shape header as IPv4, unlike IPv6 which has a totally
> different header design.

  I know.
> 
> The 43 bit IPv8 addresses will of course fit inside
> the 128 bit IPv6 addresses if that is ever useful.

  I think it will eventualy.

> The 43 bits also fit into 64 bit computer architectures
> and with object-oriented systems based on platforms
> and not protocols, this becomes important.

  Very important indeed!
> 
> Balance is important in all design...

  True.  But sometimes Overdesign is important also.
> 
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation

regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com