legacy /8

Sat Apr 3 13:55:13 UTC 2010

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 at jsbc.cc> wrote:
> On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:jimb at jsbc.cc]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM
>>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>>> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>>>
>>
>>
>>> So, 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 and
>>>
>> preciousness
>>
>>> of 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
>
>
>