What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?

Joe Greco jgreco at ns.sol.net
Sun Apr 4 02:36:55 UTC 2010


> What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same
> 160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
> 
> IPv6 is a loser because everyone has to carry the overhead of bloated
> packets. It is a one-size-fits-all take it or leave it solution.

By that logic, wouldn't IPv4 also be considered a loser because everyone
has been carrying the overhead of bloated packets for years?  Especially
near the beginning, we didn't need a 32-bit-sized address ...

And why would we jump to 64-bit addressing, since you're so worried about
the bloat in packets?  Wouldn't it be more sensible to move to 36-bit or
40-bit addresses?  If we jump to 64, aren't we wasting at least 56 bits 
per packet then (2 * (64 - 36))?

And if we're going to completely re-work IP, why wouldn't we just move to
a version that ensures addresses are plentiful?  And if we're going to do
that, why not just go with 128 bits?

Bits are cheap.  I mean, really, really, really, REALLY cheap.  Trading
a few bytes worth in order to get a solution that'll last us for the rest
of our lifetimes (and then some) is a no-brainer.

However, if you're really interested in it, I suggest you read the message
I posted, subject of "Important", a few days ago.  It suggests a
bloat-free way to continue to grow the existing network.  It's completely
practical and I think you should promote it.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.




More information about the NANOG mailing list