On 2010-04-20 09:12, Ran Atkinson wrote: > Folks, > > As I've said before, ILNP can work with IPv4 as well as IPv6. > Of course, the engineering varies, but the architecture is the same. > Folks might want to examine the L32 record in draft-rja-ilnp-dns, > for example. > > Further, multiple ISP folk tell me that they are now > configuring their routers to ignore all IPv4 options
Actually, draft-carpenter-aeiou (one of older proposals for extending IPv4 addresses) was dropped in 1994 because of the issue of the Internet not being transparent to new options. There's really nothing new under the sun. Brian (including > the IPv4 Router Alert option) because of concerns about (D)DOS > attacks on backbone infrastructure. > > This new deployment approach has the effect of making all deployed > IPv4 options end-to-end options, rather than being hop-by-hop options. > It also means that if one puts an IPv4 option in an IPv4 packet, > it is likely to be received at the intended end node, and also is > likely NOT to cause performance issues in IPv4 backbones. > > Cheers, > > Ran > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
