nanog mailing list archives
Re: legacy /8
From: jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:55:13 -0300
Not sure the IETF looked at it or not, but personally I'm one of those people that has never accepted a solution just because, its the only option there. I haven't always won my battles, but never just give in :) -jim On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Jim Burwell <jimb () jsbc cc> wrote:
On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote:-----Original Message----- From: Jim Burwell [mailto:jimb () jsbc cc] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: legacy /8So, jump through hoops to kludge up IPv4 so it continues to provide address space for new allocations through multiple levels of NAT (or whatever), and buy a bit more time, or jump through the hoops required to deploy IPv6 and eliminate the exhaustion problem? And also, if the IPv4 space is horse-traded among RIRs and customers as you allude to above, IPv6 will look even more attactive as the price andpreciousnessof IPv4 addresses increases.No problem, everyone tunnels v4 in v4 and the "outer" ip address is your 32-bit ASN and you get an entire /0 of "legacy" ip space inside your ASN. Just need to get rid of BGP and go to some sort of label switching with the border routers having an ASN to upstream label table and there ya go. Oh, and probably create an AA RR in DNS that is in ASN:x.x.x.x format. Increase the MTU a little and whammo! There ya go! Done. :)So essentially add 32-bits to the IPv4 address, used as a ASN, and use legacy V4 on the "backbone" which tunnels everything, so the entire intra-ASN internet has to go through v4-in-v4 tunnels. A few "little" changes to DNS, and voila! And of course, there's no "devils in the details" we have to worry about. Heck. Just quote that last post up and submit it as an RFC to replace the IPv6 RFCs! :-) Seriously though, would that really be easier to implement, or be better than IPv6 as this point? I'd think the IETF would probably have considered solutions like that, but IPv6 is what we got. So best learn to love it. :P -Jim
Current thread:
- NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8), (continued)
- NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) Lee Howard (Apr 07)
- Re: NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) David Conrad (Apr 09)
- Re: legacy /8 Mark Smith (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- RE: legacy /8 George Bonser (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 bmanning (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 James Hess (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Mark Andrews (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Jim Burwell (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Steven Bellovin (Apr 03)
- RE: legacy /8 George Bonser (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Jim Burwell (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Bill Bogstad (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Dan White (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 David Conrad (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Brielle Bruns (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 02)