nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: bzs () theworld com
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:47:24 -0400
On October 6, 2019 at 16:35 jhellenthal () dataix net (J. Hellenthal) wrote:
And in which part of the header is this to be added ?
I assume you mean the additional address. The IHL provides for up to 60 bytes of IP header length. 20 bytes is needed for the usual IPv4 header so an additional 40 bytes are available or 20 bytes for each of source and destination, adding the 4 bytes already present that's 24 bytes for each of source and destination or a theoretical total of 192 bits of (each) source and dest address. All a strictly IPv4 only host/router would need to understand in that case is the IHL, which it does already, and how to interpret whatever flag/option is used to indicate the presence of additional address bits mostly to ignore it or perhaps just enough to know to drop it if it's not implemented.
-- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.On Oct 6, 2019, at 15:58, bzs () theworld com wrote: On October 6, 2019 at 15:18 mpalmer () hezmatt org (Matt Palmer) wrote:On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:36:50PM -0400, bzs () theworld com wrote: On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 owen () delong com (Owen DeLong) wrote:OK… Let’s talk about how? How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?A bit in the header or similar (version field) indicating extending addressing (what we call IPv6, or similar) is in use for this packet.How does that allow the host that only understands 32-bit addresses to exchange traffic with a host which sets this header bit?As I said, it doesn't, but it lets each host decide that rather than the router tho if the host just knows enough to copy out the entire src/dst address (imagine the bits beyond the first 32 were in something like an extended ICMP options field w/in the IP header) then the rest could operate identically to ipv4. So all you'd need added to a host IPv4 stack would be if you see this extended addressing flag/bit/whatever then there's more that needs to be copied out to each outgoing IP packet. It would be the routers' job to interpret those extra bits for routing. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs () TheWorld com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs () TheWorld com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Current thread:
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment John R. Levine (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 10)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Tony Finch (Oct 10)
- RE: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Kevin Menzel (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Palmer (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Forrest Christian (List Account) (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Rob McEwen (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Stephen Satchell (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Rob McEwen (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Denis Fondras (Oct 07)