The original TCP/IP architecture assumes that an interface on one hostUhm, I would argue that pre-CIDR the network didn't know the shortest-path, not the other way around?
communicates with an interface on another host, the network always knows
what connects where and nobody will try to disrupt all of this. Today,
most services run on several hosts (load balancers) or the other way
around (NAT). Most of the network has no idea if destinations are even
reachable, let alone what the shortest path is (CIDR). Every aspect of
Agree. However, addressspace and preventing DDOS are two completely different issues. We actually already today have both the tools and the knowledge to prevent many of the DDOS attacks, still people are not doing it. This has nothing to do with the architecture. Same goes for routing scaling. Announcing a /20 as multiple /24s is not a sign of a broken architecture.the network is open to constant disruption (DDoS et al.). But IPv6 is still just IPv4 with bigger addresses.
The above said, I do agree that there are things in the architecture that we need to change. I just don't think they are IPv6 specific.IPv6 is a reasonably good way to get packets across links. Routing and layer 4 and up don't do what we need them to do so an architectural overhaul is certainly in order.