On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote: > Unfortunately there isn't much new under the sun. > > Matthew allegedly wrote on 04/16/2010 15:07 EDT: >> I would like to propose the following concept for discussion. The idea >> is to either extend IPv4 or create a new protocol that would work with >> IPv4 in order to allow a backwards compatible, yet hierarchical >> addressing model.
Hi Matthew, Welcome! Though intended as a half-joking "so-there" when someone years ago claimed there was no conceivable way we could have extended IPv4, I'd welcome your thoughts on: http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html > <96-bit identifier based on region, service provider, etc> <32-bit > IPv4 style address> > > In addition, organizations with an ASN would have the following > fully-unique address: > > <16 or 32-bit ASN> <96-bit ID> <32-bit IPv4 style address> One of the things we've discovered over the course of our investigations here is that overloading multiple functions on a single number is an often regretted decision. How much less trouble would we be in today if the protocol stack didn't use the source and destination IP addresses in the process of associating a TCP packet with its connection? The AS number already has a purpose. It isn't forwarding packets. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
