If I remember correctly, you Brian, once wrote IPv6 is just more of IPv4,
right?
Its basics are according to 1998 or so. E.g. it still has the same simple
TTL which doesn't help avoiding loops (it can only report maybe-loops), no
mechanism to enfoce consistent routes (e.g others than the shortest one) etc.
etc. ...
Given that IPv6 was once THE FUTURE, it is know a
(additional) constraint for any new architecture :-(
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 28.05.2008 23:34:18 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com:
On
2008-05-29 02:25, David Conrad wrote:
...
> What can we keep in the
existing infrastructure and architecture and
> still "Do It
Right"?
>
> Or perhaps, what part of the existing infrastructure
and architecture
> should we jettison because it isn't necessary and/or
is wrong?
I fear that are some parts that may be wrong but have to be
kept
because, er, that's how the Internet has been constructed.
To
be specific, in 1974 Louis Pouzin wrote:
"There is no need to interpret the
destination address any more
than required to find an appropriate gateway
in the correct direction.
Putting gateway names in addresses is
unacceptable, as it would
tie up addressing and network topology. Thus,
only PSN [packet
switched network] names should be used as catenet
[internet]
addresses. Delivering a message to a final destination is
carried
out only by the final PSN."
Pouzin also proposed an address
format:
<Format> <PSN name> <Local
name>
where the local name is explicitly of variable length.
Now,
I fear he was right, but that's not what got implemented.
We got a model
based on fixed length addresses without a format
prefix. I didn't see in
the IPng discussion and don't see now how
we can jettison that.
I
don't disagree with your argument, but we may not be able to
"do it right"
in the sense of mathematical perfection. We have to
"do it as right as
possible given the starting point."
> The reason I ask is that is
seems to me that much of the discussion
> lately has appeared to me to
be based upon widely varying base
> assumptions about what is and isn't
necessary to "Do It Right". I
> suspect it might be hard to reach
consensus if this were to be the case...
Maybe we need a list of things
that will not change?
Brian
--
to unsubscribe
send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a
single line as the message text body.
archive:
<http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> &
ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg