[13603] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv8 < IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bradley Reynolds)
Wed Nov 12 02:11:27 1997
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:10:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Bradley Reynolds <brad@b63695.student.cwru.edu>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
cc: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <01BCEA9D.1D7679C0@pc.unir.net>
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> Thanks for the responses to my IPv8 note.
>
> In case people missed the point, IPv8 addresses
> are smaller than IPv6. Here are the sizes.
>
> IPv4 - 32 bits
> IPv6 - 128 bits
> IPv8 - 43 bits (3+8+32)
>
> There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8
> addressing....8 regions, 256 distribution centers
> in each region and full 32 bit Internets from there.
> IPv8 addresses can fit inside the IPv6 address fields.
>
Make sure that the alternic crowd (when they
get out of jail) controls one of those 8 regions. This
scheme imposes an administrative hierarchy to addressing/networking
which is not conducive to the kind of growth we have seen to date.
Granted, there will be an administrative hierarchy no
matter how you structure addresses, but I would rather that the
consumer decides who is going to administer the tiers
of such a hierarchy instead of leaving that decision
to the protocol fairy.
brad reynolds
ber@cwru.edu
"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
