nanog mailing list archives
Re: CIDR FAQ
From: kwe () 6SigmaNets com (Kent W. England)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 09:30:42 -0800
At 5:04 AM 8/17/95, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
In IPv6 there is a notion of "IPv4 compatible" addresses. These are IPv6 addresses (128 bits) that have IPv4 address as their low order 32 bits and the rest (96 bits) are zero. ... What you said is correct only if hosts use IPv6 addresses that are not "IPv4 compatible". But transition with hosts that don't have IPv4 compatible addresses is quite messy.
Yakov; If you have an IPv6 capable host, why use "IPv4 compatible" addresses? Why not use an algorithmic translation that includes a provider prefix? It would seem to me that any IPv6 host should have the capability to algorithmically translate its IPv4 address, preferably dynamically. --Kent
Current thread:
- Re: CIDR FAQ, (continued)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Sean Doran (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Sean Doran (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Sean Doran (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Dave Siegel (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Sean Doran (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Hank Nussbacher (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Dorian Rysling Kim (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Elise Gerich (Aug 18)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Dorian Rysling Kim (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Hank Nussbacher (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Guy T Almes (Aug 18)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Kent W. England (Aug 18)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Yakov Rekhter (Aug 18)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Ross Veach (Aug 18)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Ross Veach (Aug 18)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Dave Siegel (Aug 18)