[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

On 4-jun-2007, at 18:20, Paul Vixie wrote:

> TLA's are dead.  8+8 is dead.  A6/DNAME is dead.  EUI64 can also die.

> i realized recently that if IPng was going to just be IPv4 with larger
> addresses, then we didn't need flow labels or any of that other stuff,
> and we could have reused the IPv4 ethertype and framing, just revved
> the version number field and defined 128 bit src/dst and been able to
> implement and deploy it in a year.

Sure, it's the flow labels and the ethertype that people find too  
difficult to deal with so they're not deploying IPv6.

Remind me, when were the DHCPv6 specs finished again?

</sarcastic>

The big thing in IPv6 is the larger address size. All the other stuff  
is certainly interesting and we can discuss it to death, but if and  
when desired, it can be bolted onto IPv4 and you can translate  
between the old and the new IPv4 so no deployability issues (well,  
except overzealous firewalls, of course). The part that requires  
upgrading ALL hosts and routers is the increased address size.