nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 11:22:09 +0900
Matthew Walster wrote:
IPv6 is technologically superior to IPv4, there's no doubt about that.
It is not. Though IPv6 was designed against OSI CLNP (with 20B, or, optionally, 40B addresses), IPv6 incorporated many abandoned ideas of CLNP and XNS already known to be useless or harmful with experiences on IPv4 to be a protocol as bad as or even worse than CLNP. For example, address length was extended from original 8B to 16B to allow lower 48bits be MAC addresses, which was what XNS was doing, only to make ISP operations with raw addresses prohibitively painful. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: V6 still not supported, (continued)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Bryan Fields (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Ca By (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Christopher Morrow (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Gary E. Miller (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Robert L Mathews (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Matthew Walster (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported William Allen Simpson (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported William Allen Simpson (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported Saku Ytti (Mar 16)
- RE: V6 still not supported Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 17)
- RE: V6 still not supported Matthew Huff (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported Dave Bell (Mar 17)
- RE: V6 still not supported Matthew Huff (Mar 17)
- RE: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 17)