| 1 |
On Mar 9, 2013 4:51 AM, "Kevin Chadwick" <ma1l1ists@××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> > >> 1. The craziness of trying to conserve IPv4 space |
| 4 |
> > >> 2. NAT. Finally, a good solid techical reason to make NAT just go |
| 5 |
away |
| 6 |
> > >> and stay away. Permanently. Forever. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > It's a great shame that isn't all it fixed (ipv5), then your job |
| 9 |
> > > wouldn't have been so hard and there wouldn't be any reason for many |
| 10 |
of |
| 11 |
> > > us to cling to ipv4 of which there are many strong reasons that are |
| 12 |
far |
| 13 |
> > > far worse than NAT. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > IPv5 never really existed. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2003/06/what_ever_happened_to_ipv5.html |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> First I've heard of ST or an actual ipv5 but sounds like they had |
| 23 |
> dropped a layer. Having options like tcp or udp is a good thing. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost |
| 26 |
> lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by |
| 27 |
> ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone |
| 28 |
> being happy to switch to it is simply ipv4 with more bits for address |
| 29 |
> space. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> If I got an ISP who only offers me IPV6 I would drop the ISP before the |
| 32 |
> IPV4! |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Unfortunately, your logic is flawed. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Where would you put the additional bits of address? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
That would involve rewriting the IP Header. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
And while we're at it, why not *totally* remake IP based on decades of |
| 42 |
observation & experience? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Hence, IPv6. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Rgds, |
| 47 |
-- |
Archives