[157065] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cutler James R)
Thu Oct 4 16:17:17 2012
From: Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVKC=w_st4gYWV2=Rhrnc5hPQRHFB2bq6MsXm8ubW9Efg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 16:17:06 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:00 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
> <james.cutler@consultant.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>> I suggest that the DNS name space should be considered to be
>> an "hierarchical host address space" thus satisfying (1) and making =
(2) moot.
>=20
> I'd suggest that too, but we'd have to throw out TCP, UDP and a good
> chunk of the BSD sockets API to get there.
>=20
> Or did you mean use DNS as it fits in the current system, which
> doesn't actually satisfy (1) at all since the layer 4 protocols
> continue to build the connection identity from the layer 3 network
> identity instead of the external host/service identity.
>=20
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
Yes.=20
Why does the connection identity have to include the host identifier. =
Is that not a problem under the control of applications?
