How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Owen DeLong owen at
Fri Oct 2 00:53:28 UTC 2015

OK… Let’s look at the ASN32 process.

Use ASN 23456 (16-bit) in the AS-Path in place of each ASN32 entry in the path.
Preserve the ASN32 path in a separate area of the BGP attributes.

So, where in the IPv4 packet do you suggest we place these extra 128 bits of address?

Further, what mechanism do you propose for forwarding to the 128 bit destination by
looking at the value in the 32 bit field?

The closest I can come to a viable implementation of what you propose would be
to encapsulate IPv6 packets between IPv6 compatible hosts in an IPv4 datagram
which is pretty much what 6in4 would be.

If you want the end host on the other side to be able to send a reply packet, then
it pretty much has to be able to somehow handle that 128 bit reply address
to set up the destination for the reply packet, no? (No such requirements for ASN32).

Seriously, Todd, this is trolling pure and simple.

Unless you have an actual complete mechanism for solving the problem, you’re just
doing what you do best… Trolling.

Admittedly, most of your trolling has enough comedic value that we laugh and get
past it, but nonetheless, let’s see if you have a genuine solution to offer or if this
is just bluster.


> On Oct 1, 2015, at 16:52 , Todd Underwood <toddunder at> wrote:
> I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the
> embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's
> naive and ignorant in a genius way.
> Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can be
> properly done.
> This was harder but not impossible. We just chose badly for decades and now
> we have NAT *and* a dumb migration.
> Oh well.
> T
> On Oct 1, 2015 19:26, "Matthew Newton" <mcn4 at> 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.
>> :-)
>> Matthew
>> --
>> Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <mcn4 at>
>> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services,
>> I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
>> For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ithelp at>

More information about the NANOG mailing list