On Mar 9, 2013 4:51 AM, "Kevin Chadwick" <ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> 1. The craziness of trying to conserve IPv4 space > > >> 2. NAT. Finally, a good solid techical reason to make NAT just go away > > >> and stay away. Permanently. Forever. > > > > > > It's a great shame that isn't all it fixed (ipv5), then your job > > > wouldn't have been so hard and there wouldn't be any reason for many of > > > us to cling to ipv4 of which there are many strong reasons that are far > > > far worse than NAT. > > > > > > > > > > IPv5 never really existed. > > > > http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2003/06/what_ever_happened_to_ipv5.html > > First I've heard of ST or an actual ipv5 but sounds like they had > dropped a layer. Having options like tcp or udp is a good thing. > > What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost > lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by > ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone > being happy to switch to it is simply ipv4 with more bits for address > space. > > If I got an ISP who only offers me IPV6 I would drop the ISP before the > IPV4! >
Unfortunately, your logic is flawed. Where would you put the additional bits of address? That would involve rewriting the IP Header. And while we're at it, why not *totally* remake IP based on decades of observation & experience? Hence, IPv6. Rgds, --
