Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Another +1 from me.
> And with respect to the alleged mistake made 15 years ago, two facts
> may help:
You are saying it's not post-mortem but vivisection. OK.
> 2. There is, mathematically and logically, no 'backwards compatible'
> IP with bigger addresses than IPv4.
Your statement is unfounded.
Port restricted IP is the mathematical and logical IP with bigger
*APPLICATION* address than IPv4 with full backward compatibility.
> So the issue of interworking between legacy
> IPv4-only systems and the world of bigger addresses is an
> unavoidable fact of the physical universe.
As the address space for transport and application layers is
address+protocol+port, the space is identical with both IPv4 and
port restricted IPv4. Thus, iterworking between IPv4 and PR-IPv4
just works.
> Which is why BEHAVE is currently doing NAT64.
With the existence of PR-IPv4, IPv6 including NAT64 is denied,
mathematically and logically.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
