legacy /8

Sat Apr 3 17:24:49 UTC 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:jimb at jsbc.cc]
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 11:48 PM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
> 
> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 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
> 

That is true and we have little choice at this point but we had 10 years
and simply encapsulating v4 in v4 could have been implemented at the
router level years ago with little problem years ago.  And forget about
the IETF at this point because they would not have had to be involved
with this.  It is operating within the v4 spec that was already
specified, they would not have had to do anything.  Call it v4^2 and
implement it initially at the router level and then eventually customer
demand pulls it down to the end system level with tcp/ipip becoming the
standard.  It was really just a muse (the point of the smiley at the
end).

I will be in the process of deploying v6 once I get a current project
put to bed.  Where did I put that helmet?

G