IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 08 October 2010 00:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 DFB9D3A6B95 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.316, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 TLcEk9x1e2uv for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 904F73A6E09 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 84472 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2010 00:42:19 -0000
Received: from softbank219001188004.bbtec.net (HELO ?192.168.1.22?) (219.1.188.4) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 8 Oct 2010 00:42:19 -0000
Message-ID: <4CAE636D.9030603@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:18:53 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: US DoD and IPv6
References: <20101006150059.E2DB76BE567@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <29CA87B0-2C3C-4FBF-8682-0616B648F0AE@network-heretics.com> <4CACB070.1070501@gont.com.ar> <DE24B5F5-31FF-45E1-A99E-74AB9C9F17D6@network-heretics.com> <AANLkTi=9Dvs51BH2yZ8W467Q8zO3rU=WHDmDKKf=bB2n@mail.gmail.com> <E82F3E3F-DFAF-421B-8E57-8185E1D9CB2E@network-heretics.com> <4CAD1AFA.7080701@gont.com.ar> <5FBAB80E-DC93-4E4C-B4F8-E8CE71BBD715@network-heretics.com> <D4F84290-C3D7-486C-AF0A-C163F8B3F55E@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <D4F84290-C3D7-486C-AF0A-C163F8B3F55E@virtualized.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:19:34 -0000

David Conrad wrote:

> Topological aggregation to permit scaling was an afterthought
> that doesn't fit particularly well into that architecture.

Topological aggregation to divide an IP address into network
and local address parts with classes A, B and C to permit
scaling has been there from the beginning.

It's inherent to fundamental architecture of the CATENET model.

You can find more than two levels of aggregation in RFC796.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email