[184314] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Damian Menscher via NANOG)
Thu Oct 1 21:29:16 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20151001232613.GD123100@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 18:28:52 -0700
To: Matthew Newton <mcn4@leicester.ac.uk>
From: Damian Menscher via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: Damian Menscher <damian@google.com>
Cc: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton <mcn4@leicester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +0000, Todd Underwood wrote:
> > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the
> rest
> > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess
> > we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons
> > learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet).
>
> Would be really interesting to know how you would propose
> squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field so that we
> could all continue to use IPv4 with more addresses than it's has
> available to save having to move to this new incompatible format.
I solved that problem a few years ago (well, kinda -- only for backend
logging, not for routing):
http://docs.guava-libraries.googlecode.com/git/javadoc/com/google/common/net/InetAddresses.html#getCoercedIPv4Address(java.net.InetAddress)
Damian
