[125636] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV4 and IPV6 question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Apr 20 16:05:56 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <000801cae0c1$7aca03d0$4401a8c0@jgbpc>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:02:07 -0700
To: <jbfixurpc@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
You're literally talking about modifying code on every computer, router, =
printer,
and other device with an IP address as well as updating every =
application,
routing protocol, etc. Pretty much the same set of requirements for =
deploying
IPv6, but, with IPv6, we've at least already done the code on most =
computers
and routers.
To me, it sounds like the same effort as deploying IPv6, but, without =
gaining
as many bits and without having the advantage of the progress we have
already made in IPv6.
Owen
On Apr 20, 2010, at 12:41 PM, <jbfixurpc@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Greetings,
>=20
> <flame_suit_on>
>=20
> This may seem like a stupid question, but in IPV4 there are a =
few
> "reserved" bits which I've not seen used, but perhaps I am behind the =
times.
> With regard to these, what if one was to use such to delegate a second =
venue
> of IP space? In otherwords flip a bit in the flags reserved <
> http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/ip.htm#Flags > and now its
> considered IPV4.2 ... Would that not give a second range of IP address =
space
> to use? Granted there would be a ton of upgrades/updates to enable =
such, but
> sounds a little bit simplier than an IPV6 upgrade, maybe? I am on the =
fence
> regarding IPV6 as there have been many logical arguments pro and con
> regarding its deployment. I still have to wonder about these =
"reserved"
> bits, that seem never to be used, why not use them? Again perhaps I am
> behind the times and all of the bits are being used. Just my 2 cents.=20=
>=20
> </flame_suit_on>
>=20
> Kind regards
> -Joe
>=20
