Re: Ready to compromise? was RE: V6 still not supported

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Dear Pascal:

1)    I had a quick look at the below updated draft. I presume Figure 2 
is intended to address my request. Since each IPv4 address has 4 bytes, 
what are the 12 bytes allocated for IPv4 header fields (outer) and 
(inner), each? Aren't they the standard first 12 bytes of packet 
identifier in an IPv4 header? If so, why not show it straightforward as 
defined by RFC791?

2) If my above assumption is correct, you are essentially prefixing the 
packet identifying portion (inner) of an IPv4 header with another one 
(the "outer"), without making use of the existing Options words like my 
EzIP proposal. How could any existing routers handle a packet with this 
new header format, without any design related upgrade? If you do expect 
upgrade, it would appear to me as too much to ask. Am I missing something?


Regards,


Abe (2022-04-14 18:46)



On 2022-04-08 10:34, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Following advice from thus list, I updated the YADA I-Draft (latest 
> ishttps://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt-03.html, more to come soon if feedback is heard) and 
> proposed it to the v6ops WG at the IETF.
>
> For memory, the main goal here is to find a compromise as opposed to yet another transition solution, though it can be 
> used as a side effect to move along the ladder. The compromise does not change IPv4 or IPv6, tries not to take side for 
> one or the other, and add features to both sides which, if implemented, reduce the chasm that leads to dual stack and 
> CG-NATs.
>
> There's value for the movers, lots more public address space for the IPv4-only stack/networks and free prefixes per 
> node and new deployment opportunities for the IPv6-only ones.
>
> One major update from the original text accounts for Dave's comment in this list on BCP 38 enforcement, I believe it's 
> solved now. I also added format layouts to Abe Chen's question, and text on the naïve version vs. all the elasticity that exists 
> there and in IP in general to allow real world deployments.
>
> Comments welcome, here and/or at v6ops for those who participate there.
>
> Many thanks in advance;
>
> Pascal



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus