Re: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Tony Lauck <tlauck () madriver com>
> Date: November 5, 2008 3:06:50 PM EST
> To: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker () bbiw net>
> Cc: "'David Farber'" <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split
>
> If it had a few more bits the one serious problem with IP v4 would  
> have been pushed out past our lifetimes. Unfortunately, Vint Cerf  
> did not take me seriously back in 1978 when I suggested that the 32  
> bit address was going to be too small if he were successful. :-)
>
> As to the ID function, I think you are on the right track in  
> starting with existing end to end security mechanisms such as TLS.   
> I haven't thought through any details, beyond the possibility that a  
> private key / public key pair can serve as an ID without requiring  
> new global infrastructure.
>
>
> Tony Lauck
> https://www.aglauck.com
>
>
> > That is what motivated my selections, above, starting with Tony  
> > Lauck's  observation about complexity:  The network layer really  
> > does work well.  I mean *really* well. As "experiments" or  
> > "prototypes" go, IPv4 has  not done all that badly.  Not too many  
> > technologies scale over that many years and that many orders of  
> > magnitude of population size and  performance speeds.




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com