[148061] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Misconceptions, was: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Sun Jan 1 08:01:23 2012
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:59:31 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnOpsK5vMzthScvdJNkigQbVwKz3uuF4Vm_4ex2PYhSo+g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Ray Soucy wrote:
> Well, it seems now you've also added the requirement that we also
> dramatically re-write all software that makes use of networking.
> Seemingly for the sake of never admitting that you can be wrong.
Thank you for failing to point out where I am wrong.
> You seem to think that the OSI model is this nice and clean model that
> cleanly separates everything and that you can just freely replace
> chunks of it.
Not at all.
Instead, IPv6 is damaged a lot because of ATM based on so nice and
clean OSI model.
> Again, it's like you live in a
> theoretical world where physical limitations and operational realities
> don't exist.
A physical limitation and an operational reality is that we
can not remember 16B addresses.
> Go off and write up the RFCs to make this all work, and come back when
> you have an model implementation we can all look at.
As I warned that IPv6, as was, is not operational about ten
years ago, it's not my responsibility to try to make IPv6
operational within a decade or two.
Instead, I am interested in the fact that IPv4 scales well
forever with end to end transparency, if port numbers, which
may be 16b, 32b or 48b long, are used for routing.
My most recent research result is how to modify client IPv4
stack to achieve end to end transparency for clients behind
UPnP capable NAT.
Masataka Ohta
