[157034] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cutler James R)
Wed Oct 3 19:13:10 2012
From: Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbUPcP_CDEDSpDmu+_FA+d3JZR1tWB+FFf4y0ppzH1kk0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 19:12:58 -0400
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/12, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>> So the address space for IPv8 will be...
>> </troll>
>=20
> In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
> will have learned our lesson and done two things:
>=20
> (1) Stopped mixing the Host identification and the Network
> identification into the same bit field; instead every packet gets a
> source network address, destination network address, AND an
> additional tuple of Source host address, destination host
> address; residing in completely separate address spaces, with no
> "Netmasks", "Prefix lengths", or other comingling of network
> addresses and host address spaces.
>=20
> And
> (2) The new protocol will use variable-length address for the Host
> portion, such as used in the addresses of CLNP, with a convention of
> a specified length, instead of a hardwired specific limit that comes
> from using a permanently fixed-width field.
>=20
> Need more bits? No protocol definition change required.
>=20
>=20
>> Cheers,
>> -- jra
> --
> -JH
>=20
I suggest that the DNS name space should be considered to be an =
"hierarchical host address space" thus satisfying (1) and making (2) =
moot.=
