IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you understand that background.
-mel > On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:15 AM, "b...@theworld.com" <b...@theworld.com> wrote: > > > Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often > comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128 > addresses. It's not like there were ever anything close to 4 billion > (2^32) usable addresses with IPv4. > > We have entire /8s which are sparsely populated so even if they're 24M > addrs that's of no use to everyone else. Plus other dedicated uses > like multicast. > > So the problem is segmentation of that 128 bits which makes it look a > lot scarier because 128 is easy to think about, policy-wise, while > 2^128 isn't. > > My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize > IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with > a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2 > lengths were immediately implemented (4 and 16.) And some scheme to > store those addresses in the packet header, possibly IPv4 backwards > compatible (I know, I know, but here we are!) > > And we'd've been all set, up to 256 bytes (2K bits) of address. > > If wishes were horses...but I think what I'm saying here will be said > again and again. > > Too many people answering every concern with "do you have any idea how > many addresses 2^N is?!?!" while drowning out "do you have any idea > how small that N is? > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
