How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
toddunder at gmail.com
Fri Oct 2 00:56:45 UTC 2015
this is an interesting example of someone who has ill advisedly tied up his
identity in a network protocol. this is a mistake i encourage you all not
to make. network protocols come and go but you only get one shot at life,
so be your own person.
this is ad-hominem, owen and i won't engage. feel free to be principled
and have technical discussion but insults and attacks really have no place.
so please just stop and relax.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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 gmail.com> 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
> > we have NAT *and* a dumb migration.
> > Oh well.
> > T
> > On Oct 1, 2015 19:26, "Matthew Newton" <mcn4 at leicester.ac.uk> 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
> >>> 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 le.ac.uk>
> >> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services,
> >> I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United
> >> For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ithelp at le.ac.uk>
More information about the NANOG