nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:06:08 -0400 (EDT)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Shein" <bzs () world std com>
Don't change anything! That would...change things!
Your man; he is made of straw. :-)
Obviously my idea to use the host name directly as a src/dest address rather than convert it to an integer is not a small, incremental change. It's more in the realm of a speculative proposal.
Speculative is orthogonal to small or incremental; they are different measurement axes. This is also true of the difference between addresses and names. Addresses are an engineering artifact; names are a business/administrative artifact. *The entire point* of DNS vs IP is to uncouple those; necessary changes in the engineering artifact *MUST not* cause changes in the business artifact.
But I'm not sure that arguing that our string of bits (e.g., ipv6) is inherently superior to your proposed string of bits (a host name) is an immediately compelling objection.
And, unsurprisingly, no one made an argument that trivial. To the extent you think we did, I think we were merely giving you the benefit of the doubt of already understanding this dichotomy, which is pretty much Networking 201, and taken as read on NANOG. Extraordinary changes require extraordinary justification.
The objection which puzzles me the most is the implication that a numeric address locates a host or network directly or geographically rather than, as I understood it, by the tuple (address,route).
I didn't see anyone make that implication. Could you quote?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yeah; that approach didn't work out well for Jim Fleming. :-) Seriously, Barry; my appraisal of this after three decades is that this is first year stuff, and you are not a first year guy, by any stretch. So, is this just the epic troll of the year? Or is there something we're missing? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Current thread:
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design, (continued)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design David Conrad (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Eugen Leitl (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Masataka Ohta (Oct 04)
- Re: [tt] IPv4 address length technical design Eugen Leitl (Oct 04)
- Re: [tt] IPv4 address length technical design Masataka Ohta (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Mark Andrews (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Jay Ashworth (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Jay Ashworth (Oct 05)
- RE: IPv4 address length technical design nanog (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design William Herrin (Oct 05)
- RE: IPv4 address length technical design Spurling, Shannon (Oct 05)
- RE: IPv4 address length technical design Siegel, David (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design John Levine (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Fred Baker (fred) (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Cutler James R (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design William Herrin (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Cutler James R (Oct 04)