How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
hugo at slabnet.com
Fri Oct 2 16:43:40 UTC 2015
My apologies; missed the anchor for some reason and just got the top bits of the doc.
hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber
also on TextSecure & RedPhone
---- From: Damian Menscher <damian at google.com> -- Sent: 2015-10-02 - 08:45 ----
> 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.... ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 870 bytes
Desc: PGP/MIME digital signature
More information about the NANOG