[124648] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim deleskie)
Sat Apr 3 09:55:57 2010
In-Reply-To: <4BB6E488.9030003@jsbc.cc>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:55:13 -0300
From: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
To: Jim Burwell <jimb@jsbc.cc>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Not sure the IETF looked at it or not, but personally I'm one of those
people that has never accepted a solution just because, its the only
option there. I haven't always won my battles, but never just give in
:)
-jim
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Jim Burwell <jimb@jsbc.cc> wrote:
> On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:jimb@jsbc.cc]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM
>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>>>
>>
>>
>>> So, jump through hoops to kludge up IPv4 so it continues to provide
>>> address space for new allocations through multiple levels of NAT (or
>>> whatever), and buy a bit more time, or jump through the hoops required
>>> to deploy IPv6 and eliminate the exhaustion problem? =A0And also, if th=
e
>>> IPv4 space is horse-traded among RIRs and customers as you allude to
>>> above, IPv6 will look even more attactive as the price and
>>>
>> preciousness
>>
>>> of IPv4 addresses increases.
>>>
>> No problem, =A0everyone tunnels v4 in v4 and the "outer" ip address is
>> your 32-bit ASN and you get an entire /0 of "legacy" ip space inside
>> your ASN. =A0Just need to get rid of BGP and go to some sort of label
>> switching with the border routers having an ASN to upstream label table
>> and there ya go. Oh, and probably create an AA RR in DNS that is in
>> ASN:x.x.x.x format. =A0Increase the MTU a little and whammo! =A0There ya=
go!
>> Done.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
> So essentially add 32-bits to the IPv4 address, used as a ASN, and use
> legacy V4 on the "backbone" which tunnels everything, so the entire
> intra-ASN internet has to go through v4-in-v4 tunnels. =A0A few "little"
> changes to DNS, and voila! =A0And of course, there's no "devils in the
> details" we have to worry about. =A0Heck. =A0 =A0Just quote that last pos=
t up
> and submit it as an RFC to replace the IPv6 RFCs! =A0:-)
>
> Seriously though, would that really be easier to implement, or be better
> than IPv6 as this point? =A0I'd think the IETF would probably have
> considered solutions like that, but IPv6 is what we got. =A0So best learn
> to love it. =A0:P
>
> -Jim
>
>
>
