[75734] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (william(at)elan.net)
Mon Nov 22 13:21:32 2004
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:42:47 -0800 (PST)
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411221019170.12095-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> BTW - regarding why these effots while being ip-independet would not
> work for Ipv6, the reason is addressing. We need new kind of addresses
> and they all require "id" that TCP can use for establishing connection
> and that ID can not be limited to 32 bit so we end up considering reusing
> part of IPv6 space for this new kind of "non-ip" addresses. I think
> given large amount of available IPv6 space that is acceptable - if we
> cut the pool to 1/4 we'd still have enough.
Correcting myself... Its not that you can not use multi6 with IPv4 - you
can but your ip stack will need to be IPv6 capable in order to do it and
programs and service should be prepared to deal with 128bit addresses for
TCP/UDP connections. So upgrade to support IPv6 will still be necessary,
but its not a requirement to actually run ipv6 network. Of course to
support something like HIP or Multi6 you will need yet another upgrade to
your ip stack and we really should have been pushing these upgrades
together with IPv6 itself.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@elan.net
