From nobody Mon Apr 12 14:01:19 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAF83A0CB8 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BGqBcIsXEjNc for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B8FE3A0CB3 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id ot17-20020a17090b3b51b0290109c9ac3c34so9535392pjb.4 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JBdrkvhnzsLNHlv8RaMjz2flAV582tkqq2xIG0V/EBk=; b=BsowgUOuk0l7iDBD1dmAu4bBoSVKbc8XJKj+n1BOpAlR4IUhIBeFXA3ah3+UyI3yjT mumhQ6OQ17bhdgNhjfs+OYBmqt8pEmfybXFnM4V5T/yOoKm6GicSlfhOta4aTt8q+lra YzpS80ezaZ4lCAn42H/lXmK/ZgsiDwnXS8gtgEeuItEdR3/28lGDNDGOQ8+DF/hiQc78 5yg8w9DoV8VvbrfSSr2QzSqzvQm+/q0x/ceSM+NPknQJRDnaylyyevWJKG+NyvlscLO6 eu1aHbgJF+6pAWsMucWkNXHsSBcrkTIWW5OyjZ/TQB7+KMeuc5JRXm45WZaxgstmYOzL xuZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JBdrkvhnzsLNHlv8RaMjz2flAV582tkqq2xIG0V/EBk=; b=gHHw+KIjcGyZxRXCrLItw/cGbNWe3TBExEf5IeAg5YfBQWsjlkFxr7dyzYR+JRnmni ogC2QzLjrjntlicCtLC0r+iiuBixeaDd/FM/iM7Nza9LR/VX/XbEyrcv7rt5ASCd83cc EP1Rkr1L8cSoL59NVa8qczRqJU+MVJizpH52ofGz6HfDcTToaKVpvW4eIqCCwzsU78/2 +WI7Iwegqb+Uoe7HPXL6FqQ+waoy46yPHgUHIDeLjsthdr0HoD/BEZybXDjbjIsXF9Ja 3TYpyFrvBOdLeag3lohrNaSrwsIWOVpbKwh/l0HbB9AlXkwttbRIFlVg2nvz2eHFZ5ZU lctQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533L8DY7mH/udxgZrwhNiaOnc43iWpzaqWUCCuAG82f094AdXCe3 n2eNLeLSelJiqWpQuM+J9Pd57skq2fUm5A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJweIomumniq3Q0PplcHv7yWZYJetIV50gKWcUlvd59hKgdnEMfizm1ZTA+fGKMSXUjrdsOLHA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8914:: with SMTP id u20mr1116801pjn.90.1618261271924; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t23sm298140pju.15.2021.04.12.14.01.10 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Limited Domains: To: ipv6@ietf.org References: <20210412170938.GB34032@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <43b67ede-b019-c573-5637-c07168e7ec6d@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:01:08 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:01:18 -0000 On 13-Apr-21 06:13, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM Ron Bonica > wrote: >> >> Toerless, >> >> You say that "we simply should look into new, more flexible, extensible base header, backward compatible to IPv6/Internet (but with code points assigned to functionality, as we do with extension headers for example)." >> >> The idea is intriguing, but it leads to the following questions: >> >> - How do you make this new base header backwards compatible with IPv6-classic? >> - Is draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label an example of this new base header? >> > Right, it's hard to imagine that a new base header could be used > without creating a new IP version which is at least twenty years just > to get off the ground. I suppose the idea might be to have special > value in the next protocol that indicates an extension to the base IP > header, but then doesn't that just degenerate to to be another > extension header? Yes. And while we're at it, let's use Huffman coding for IP addresses. Whatever we do, we won't get away from actual line-speed implementations being constrained by current integrated circuit technology. So every few years, with a new generation of technology, the constraints change, just as the Strowger switch revolutionized telephony in 1891. Brian