On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Patrick Frejborg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > [PF] Yes, but what I had in mind is an extended IPv4 where 32 bits >> >> are reserved for the core and 32 bits are reserved for the edges - >> happens to be the same size as IPv6, i.e. 64 bits (prefix space). The >> old devices can still use IPv4 for internal communications with legacy >> applications, once a device needs to communicate outside the edge >> network it needs to use the 64 bit address space, which is backwards >> compatible with the legacy IPv4 address space. No NAT, no tunneling >> nor locator rewriting with the help of an identifier is mandatory >> though those technologies can be used if desired. > > At least, there's one who like this, the 'unprofessional' me. > > A further exploration I might do is name the nodes, not the interfaces like > now, with the IPv4 addresses... which way you might not like.
I need to look into that, currently my day work is interfering too much but this topic is on my to-do list > > Anyway, I support this core-edge decoupled addressing. Thanks! And just to clarify for Wes and others, the edge address no longer need to be globally unique - in the interim version it needs to be regionally unique but in long term it is only unique in the local edge network. RC 1918 changed the Internet architecture quite a lot and why not change the addressing scheme so that it describes better the Internet that we today have in place - that is what physics and math formulas do, i.e. they describe natural phenomenons and not creating them ;-) Patrick _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
