Re: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> >>>So what I'm getting from this discussion is that 8+8 is too late but
> >>>16+16 is too large???  I would agree that 16+16 is too large.  How
> >>>about 4+16?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I am still curious as to why people think that 16+16 would be any
> >>different to 8+8.
> >
> >Because, like 4+16, it can coexist with plain 16. Whether people like
> >it or not, the product investments in RFC 2460 at this point oblige
> >any plausible solution to behave as an upgrade to plain 16.
> >
> 
> Ok, I can see that. I was just under the (apparently mistaken) 
> impression that people thought there was some superior architectural 
> advantage with 16+16.

Well, unless you could do something very clever with the "unused" 20 bits
in the v6 header... I suspect that's the only tweak that could get wide
acceptance (compared to suggestions to use DSCP's for multihoming, which
I personally don't feel comfortable with).   

Tim