nanog mailing list archives

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption


From: Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:51:42 -0700


On Fri 2015-Oct-02 09:43:40 -0700, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:

My apologies; missed the anchor for some reason and just got the top bits of the doc.
--
Hugo
hugo () slabnet com: email, xmpp/jabber
also on TextSecure & RedPhone

---- From: Damian Menscher <damian () google com> -- Sent: 2015-10-02 - 08:45 ----

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:

On Thu 2015-Oct-01 18:28:52 -0700, Damian Menscher via NANOG <
nanog () nanog org> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton <mcn4 () leicester ac uk>
wrote:

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +0000, Todd Underwood wrote:
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the
rest
> of the internet.  it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i
guess
> we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons
> learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet).

Would be really interesting to know how you would propose
squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field so that we
could all continue to use IPv4 with more addresses than it's has
available to save having to move to this new incompatible format.


I solved that problem a few years ago (well, kinda -- only for backend
logging, not for routing):

http://docs.guava-libraries.googlecode.com/git/javadoc/com/google/common/net/InetAddresses.html#getCoercedIPv4Address(java.net.InetAddress)


Squeezing 32 bits into 128 bits is easy.  Let me know how you do with
squeezing 128 bits into 32 bits...


I did just fine, thanks.  (You may want to read the link again.... ;)

Out of curiosity, the method you describe is lossy, though, no? It is basically just intended to ensure that we don't break the database or application when we write an IPv6 address into it because it can only handle an IPv4 value. I appreciate the hack & know you have a disclaimer on there of "only for logging, not routing," but "squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field" is a bit of a stretch to describe a process that takes 128 bits, discards 64 of them, and then hashes the remaining 64 bits into 29 bits, no?


Damian

--
Hugo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Current thread: