Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting and IPv15

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 8/11/12 10:13 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> One problem with excessively large fields, including variable length
> addresses with a high maximum length, is that the next time someone
> wants to encode some additional information, they just tuck it inside
> that field in some quasi-proprietary way, instead of going to the
> trouble of actually adding a field. Witness X.509 Certificate "serial
> numbers", which are arbitrary precision integers, but which frequently
> are used for a variety of information, all BER encoded...
given various semantic uses of bits within ipv6 addresses that have been 
proposed or which are used informally even with only 128 bits it's 
important to make this distinction. a freely extensible bit field will 
end up with all sorts of garbage in it, that at best is only signficant 
in one context, and at worse is significant in different fashions in 
different contexts.

instead of having an locator-id you have a 
locator-qos-mpls-subscriberid-streetaddress-latlong-id
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>   155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>   [e-mail]
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, David Conrad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:22 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Another alternative is self-describing variable-length addresses,
>>> again do it once and we'll never have to worry about it again.
>> Heretic!  That's OSI speak!  Why do you hate the Internet you ISO/ITU lackey?!?
>>
>> </flashback>
>>
>> Yeah, variable-length addresses would have been nice. There was even working code. Maybe next IPng.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>