Re: IPv8 < IPv6

[Alan Hannan <hannan () bythetrees com>]

  Yes, and when my mother didn't make me go to bed at night, I was
  rather cranky, and tardy in my multiplication tables and spelling
  exercises the next day.

  That we can impose strict hierarchy on address allocations (like
  our friends at RIPE, APNIC, and InterNIC have done) is part of the
  reason our networking system has assumed a somewhat manageable
  growth wrt addressnig.

  Big Brother impositions are fine, if the benevolent dictatorship
  really is altruistic. (in community space allocation)

  -alan

  DISCLAIMER -- THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY THAT I SUPPORT, CONDONE, OR
                AGREE WITH JIM FLEMING.  RATHER I HARBOR FEARS THAT
                HE FLIRTS WITH DANGEROUS CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES, AND
                PERCEIVES THE WORLD IN A MANNER UNLIKE ANY OF SANE
                MIND AND BODY.

Quoting Jay R. Ashworth (jra () scfn thpl lib fl us):
> On Thu, Nov 06, 1997 at 10:16:56AM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
> > There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8
> > addressing....8 regions, 256 distribution centers
> > in each region and full 32 bit Internets from there.
> > IPv8 addresses can fit inside the IPv6 address fields.
>
> The problem here, as I see it, is that this _imposes_ a hierarchical
> structure onto the physical design on the net, which has not been the
> observed pattern of growth.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra () baylink com
> Member of the Technical Staff             Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
> The Suncoast Freenet      "Pedantry.  It's not just a job, it's an
> Tampa Bay, Florida          adventure."  -- someone on AFU      +1 813 790 7592