On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:15:20PM -0600, Jima wrote:
> On 3/7/2011 5:43 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> >I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am
> >on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old
> >IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard RFCs can be
> >easily used to connect pretty much arbitrary number (arbitrary means
> >>2^256) of computers WITHOUT NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION. Yes, you hear
> >me right.
>
> This seems like either truly bizarre trolling, or the misguided idea
> of someone who's way too invested in IPv4 and hasn't made any necessary
> plans or steps to implement IPv6. To implement this -- which, to begin
> with, seems like a bad idea to me (and judging by Mr. Andrews' response,
> others) -- you'd have to overhaul software on many, many computers,
> routers, and other devices. (Wait, why does this sound familiar?) Of
> course, the groundwork would need to be laid out and discussed, which
> will probably cost us a few years...too bad we don't have a plan that
> could be put into action sooner, or maybe even was already deployed.
>
> Anyway, the needless ROT13 text fairly well convinced me that our
> messages may be traveling over an ethernet bridge.
>
> Jima
well... not that it gained any traction atall, but given
the actual size/complexity of the global interconnect mesh,
we -could- ease the transition timing by many years with the
following administrative change. No tricks, no OS hacks,
no changes to software anywhere.. just a bit of renumbering...
recipie:
the usable IPv4 ranges
RFC 1918
Step one: Invert RFC 1918 to define the global Internets
interconnection
mesh.
Step two: make all other usable IPv4 space "private".
Serves 2,000,000 million clients w/o changing to a new protocol family.
Enjoy!
--bill
