this is an interesting example of someone who has ill advisedly tied up his identity in a network protocol. this is a mistake i encourage you all not to make. network protocols come and go but you only get one shot at life, so be your own person.
this is ad-hominem, owen and i won't engage. feel free to be principled and have technical discussion but insults and attacks really have no place. so please just stop and relax. thanks, t On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > OK… Let’s look at the ASN32 process. > > Use ASN 23456 (16-bit) in the AS-Path in place of each ASN32 entry in the > path. > Preserve the ASN32 path in a separate area of the BGP attributes. > > So, where in the IPv4 packet do you suggest we place these extra 128 bits > of address? > > Further, what mechanism do you propose for forwarding to the 128 bit > destination by > looking at the value in the 32 bit field? > > The closest I can come to a viable implementation of what you propose > would be > to encapsulate IPv6 packets between IPv6 compatible hosts in an IPv4 > datagram > which is pretty much what 6in4 would be. > > If you want the end host on the other side to be able to send a reply > packet, then > it pretty much has to be able to somehow handle that 128 bit reply address > to set up the destination for the reply packet, no? (No such requirements > for ASN32). > > Seriously, Todd, this is trolling pure and simple. > > Unless you have an actual complete mechanism for solving the problem, > you’re just > doing what you do best… Trolling. > > Admittedly, most of your trolling has enough comedic value that we laugh > and get > past it, but nonetheless, let’s see if you have a genuine solution to > offer or if this > is just bluster. > > Owen > > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 16:52 , Todd Underwood <toddun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the > > embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's > > naive and ignorant in a genius way. > > > > Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can be > > properly done. > > > > This was harder but not impossible. We just chose badly for decades and > now > > we have NAT *and* a dumb migration. > > > > Oh well. > > > > T > > On Oct 1, 2015 19:26, "Matthew Newton" <m...@leicester.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +0000, Todd Underwood wrote: > >>> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the > >> rest > >>> of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i > guess > >>> we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons > >>> learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet). > >> > >> Would be really interesting to know how you would propose > >> squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field so that we > >> could all continue to use IPv4 with more addresses than it's has > >> available to save having to move to this new incompatible format. > >> > >> :-) > >> > >> Matthew > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <m...@le.ac.uk> > >> > >> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, > >> I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United > Kingdom > >> > >> For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ith...@le.ac.uk> > >> > >