Re: [RRG] Moving forward...

["William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> I had some private exchange with Tony on this issue, but let me put it in
> public to help the consensus gathering: I agree that the solution must work
> for IPv6, but at the same time,
> - IPv4/v6 share the same architecture; the only major fundamental
>  difference is their address space size.

Lixia,

There's a second fundamental difference: IPv6 is still relatively
malleable. We can make significant adjustments to the protocol
(significant relative to what's possible with IPv4) because there
isn't a large enough installed base to be harmed by it.

Those differences lead to a different solution tree. For example,
http://bill.herrin.us/network/ermpi6.html would be compatible with
deployed IPv6 from an address-management perspective and would slowly
become compatible with multihoming once changes to the IPv6 stack were
deployed to match.

Unfortunately, nothing down that likely superior solution tree is
compatible with IPv4.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com  bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

--
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