Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA

Tony Whyman <whyman@mwassocs.demon.co.uk> Tue, 18 May 1993 11:06 UTC

Date: Tue, 18 May 93 08:29:45 BST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Whyman <whyman@mwassocs.demon.co.uk>
Message-Id: <1439.whyman@mwassocs.demon.co.uk>
To: Day@bbn.com
Cc: pip@thumper.bellcore.com, caldera.usc.edu@mwassocs.demon.co.uk, tuba@lanl.gov
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Reply-To: whyman@mwassocs.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA
Lines: 29

John,

In your reply to Eric Fleischman, there's a point which I think should be 
developed further:


> >                                 SIP Con
> >
> >1)  Since hierarchical addresses tend to be deployed in a "sparse" manner,
> >it unclear whether a 64 bit address space will adequately scale to meet
> >every conceivable future addressing scenario.
> 
> It is pretty clear that any fixed length will never be enough.

This is a very significant issue as regards IPng selection and should be taken 
up on the "criteria" list. Built-in obsolescence should no longer be an 
acceptable feature of a communications protocol.




-- 
Tony Whyman             McCallum Whyman Associates Ltd  Tel +44 962 735580
                                                        FAX +44 962 735581
                        Internet: whyman@mwassocs.demon.co.uk
                        Compuserve: 100041,315

PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA Eric Fleischman
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA John Day
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA Steve Deering
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA John Day
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA John Day
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA John Day
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA Steve Deering
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA Ross Callon
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA Tony Whyman
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA Tony Whyman
Re: PROs/CONs of SIP/PIP/TUBA William Allen Simpson