Re: [RAM] Different approaches for different protocols

Iljitsch van Beijnum <> Wed, 19 December 2007 15:59 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51Kc-0002p5-QN; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:59:38 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51Kb-0002p0-Gq for; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:59:37 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51KV-0000Yb-Se for; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:59:37 -0500
Received: from [IPv6:2001:720:410:1001:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb] ([IPv6:2001:720:410:1001:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBJFwBvv042276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:58:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from
Message-Id: <>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <>
To: RJ Atkinson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: Re: [RAM] Different approaches for different protocols
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:58:12 +0100
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

On 19 dec 2007, at 15:59, RJ Atkinson wrote:

> So I would suggest that folks think about IPv4 and IPv6 solution
> approaches separately.  For example, while one might want one of
> the existing proposal for IPv4 (partly for expediency and partly
> because IPv4 has more constraints), one might well want a different
> more architecturally fundamental change for IPv6 (partly because
> the protocol is more flexible due to extra bits in the header
> and partly because we have more time to study, prototype, and
> design a more elegant solution).

I have no issue with that notion except to add that a solution could  
be appropriate for both versions of IP despite those differences.

However, over on the internet area mailinglist Bob Hinden made the  
case that new work on IPv4 should stop and we should focus on IPv6  
exclusively and only do the necessary maintenance for IPv4. Since  
apparently the routing situation isn't so dire and solutions aren't  
coming up so fast that we need to / can address the IPv4 situation  
before we run out of IPv4 addresses, this makes for a reasonable  
argument, in my opinion.

RAM mailing list