IPv6 Pain Experiment

Mon Oct 7 17:20:44 UTC 2019

I didn't quite say nothing would need to be changed, only that the
changes would be by and large very minimal, some new cases in the
existing IPv4 stacks, rather than an entirely new stack. Particularly
for hosts, if this bit (flag, whatever) is set be sure to copy the
entire IP packet into your dest headers.

The extended addressing I describe could probably be mostly
implemented in hosts as a new ICMP option for extended addressing.

On October 6, 2019 at 17:58 valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis Klētnieks) wrote:
 > On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 17:47:24 -0400, bzs at theworld.com said:
 > 
 > > All a strictly IPv4 only host/router would need to understand in that
 > > case is the IHL, which it does already, and how to interpret whatever
 > > flag/option is used to indicate the presence of additional address
 > > bits mostly to ignore it or perhaps just enough to know to drop it if
 > > it's not implemented.
 > 
 > So... how would a strict IPv4 router handle the case where 8.8.4.5.13.9/40
 > should be routed to Cogent, but 8.8.4.5.17.168/40 should be routed via
 > Hurricane Electric, and no you can't just route to wherever 8.8.4.5 goes
 > because there's yet another peering war and nobody's baked a cake yet, so
 > sending packets for either route to the wrong link will cause blackholing?
 > 
 > x[DELETED ATTACHMENT <no suggested filename>, application/pgp-signature]

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*