Re: US DoD and IPv6
Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Sun, 10 October 2010 23:01 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493B13A686E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.384
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Be7Hjf46kbS for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234C13A6862 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (ppp-68-120-198-81.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.120.198.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9AN2Fi4007824 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:02:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4CB245F2.2080904@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:02:10 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>
Subject: Re: US DoD and IPv6
References: <20101008133642.0C1D06BE5C6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <8B4CDC3F-F062-429C-8391-E7E9C9AC4258@shinkuro.com> <6901ED03111E4FA2D4B364BF@PST.JCK.COM> <A183DC54-7F37-4398-8DAB-DF8739E5F146@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <A183DC54-7F37-4398-8DAB-DF8739E5F146@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:01:26 -0000
On 10/10/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > A compatible solution would have been better, but I don't think IPv4... -- > were designed in a way that permitted a compatible extension. Oh? Perhaps: 1. Adopt an IPv6 as Steve Deering originally designed it[1]: A basic upgrade to the IPv4 header, with more address bits, an extensibility mechanisms for adding fields later, and removal of some bits that weren't needed. 2. Define the IPv6 address space as the IPv4 address space, with all zeroes for the higher bits. (In other words, defer more interesting schemes until later.) 3. Design header translation devices to map between the two formats. 4. Start fielding these implementations. (That could have started by 1994 or so.) The "gateways" between v4 and v6 would initially be notably for having almost no work to do and of not losing any information. In particular, barely qualifies as a "dual" stack. With this approach, "incompatibility" between v4 and v6 would only occur when additional addresses, beyond v4's limitations, start to be assigned. We must deal with the current reality and make it work, but historical considerations need to factor in the ambitions that dominated during the many years of design. The community got ambitious in a fashion that smacked of the overreaching that is often called second system syndrome (although counting the Arpanet, this was really a third system...) d/ [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deering-sip-00 -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- US DoD and IPv6 Noel Chiappa
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Ole Jacobsen
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Joel Jaeggli
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Thomas Narten
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Thomas Narten
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 RJ Atkinson
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 John C Klensin
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 TJ
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Ron Broersma
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Noel Chiappa
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Noel Chiappa
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- End to end NAT (was Re: US DoD and IPv6) Masataka Ohta
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Michael Richardson
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Noel Chiappa
- RE: US DoD and IPv6 Michel Py
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 David Conrad
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- RE: US DoD and IPv6 Noel Chiappa
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Noel Chiappa
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Fernando Gont
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 David Conrad
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Fernando Gont
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: US DoD and IPv6 Fleischman, Eric
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Fernando Gont
- existing (and questionable) application designs [… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: existing (and questionable) application desig… Masataka Ohta
- RE: US DoD and IPv6 Michel Py
- IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) Richard L. Barnes
- Re: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) Michel Py
- RE: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) Michel Py
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- RE: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) Dave Cridland
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Noel Chiappa
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: existing (and questionable) application desig… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 David Conrad
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- Re: existing (and questionable) application desig… Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Noel Chiappa
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Steve Crocker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Ofer Inbar
- RE: US DoD and IPv6 Christian Huitema
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 John C Klensin
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Ole Jacobsen
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave Cridland
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) Dave CROCKER
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave Cridland
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave Cridland
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Steve Crocker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave CROCKER
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Steve Crocker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave CROCKER
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave CROCKER
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Joel Jaeggli
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave CROCKER
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave CROCKER
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave CROCKER
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave CROCKER
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave CROCKER
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Noel Chiappa
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Keith Moore
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Dave CROCKER
- RE: US DoD and IPv6 Fleischman, Eric
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Masataka Ohta
- Re: US DoD and IPv6 Phillip Hallam-Baker