[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6
fred at cisco.com
Mon Dec 7 01:19:41 EST 2009
On Dec 7, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Michel Py wrote:
> I would entertain that IPv4+ (which would be a backwards-compatible
> with the only difference being an extended address space) would be
> 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."
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML