RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Tony Li wrote:
> I'd submit that if it cannot be easily ported back to IPv4, that it
> bears closer examination.  v4 and v6 are architecturally very
> similar.  Any solution that does not apply to both is either a
> kludge or is exploiting an odd property of one of the two.  In
> either case, it would bear close examination.  You know, the kind
> that you give things when the fire alarm in the building goes off...
> ?  ;-)

I have to heartily disagree here.  IPv6 address *does* have more bits.  
Different problem spaces have leveraged that property before as well,
leading to solutions which are not easily backportable to IPv4.

Maybe one could reword this differently: the solution beas some 
thinking about if it doesn't rely on the 128bit address length of 
IPv6, and is not easily IPv4-capable.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings