How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
damian at google.com
Fri Oct 2 15:45:23 UTC 2015
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo at slabnet.com> wrote:
> On Thu 2015-Oct-01 18:28:52 -0700, Damian Menscher via NANOG <
> nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton <mcn4 at leicester.ac.uk>
>> 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
>>> > 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.
>> I solved that problem a few years ago (well, kinda -- only for backend
>> logging, not for routing):
> Squeezing 32 bits into 128 bits is easy. Let me know how you do with
> squeezing 128 bits into 32 bits...
I did just fine, thanks. (You may want to read the link again.... ;)
More information about the NANOG