From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun May 5 14:02:35 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA09695 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 5 May 1996 14:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA09688 for ; Sun, 5 May 1996 14:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA20010; Sun, 5 May 1996 13:52:32 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199605052052.NAA20010@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: IPv8 Tutorial #1: Minimal IPv8 hack To: JimFleming@unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 13:52:32 -0700 (MST) Cc: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, imb@scgt.oz.au, FreeBSD-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, JimFleming@unety.net In-Reply-To: <01BB3A2C.4CFF6A80@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at May 5, 96 02:41:01 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Jim Fleming writes: > On Sunday, May 05, 1996 12:33 PM, michael butler[SMTP:imb@scgt.oz.au] wrote: > @ Darren Reed writes: > > @ Neither IPv8 or IPv6 is going to magically "fix" the result of at least > @ one of the three 6 meg bearers taking today off on a picnic :-( > @ > @ michael > @ > @ > > Keep in mind that if you are on an IPv8 network then the > IPv4 Legacy Internet is viewed as "damage" and we route > around it...:-) You are dragging the *worst* attribute of IPv4 and IPv6 with you into "IPv8": connection to servers instead of connection to services. The way to resolve the route congestion problem from your other posting is not bigger pipes (such as might be temporarily provided through alternate routes, until they, too, filled up), it's less use of the congested route ("congested route" in the "IPv8" scheme would refer to multiple route congestion, but it's topologically equivalent). To accomplish this, you need to replicate services on your side of a congested link, and connect to the service, instead of the server, to avoid use of the link altogether. This does not seem a direct fallout of your "Limited Hierarchical Routing". I am also more than somewhat concerned with your geographical "galaxy" assignment, and the fact that the increased address space may buy us some time, but will not buy as much time as IPv6. I suggest that FreeBSD adopt equivalent code that will not hinder your research, when choosing between one set of code or another, but also that it should not integrate the "IPv8" code directly, especially with the "hacks" you've suggested. This course of action on the part of FreeBSD is simply optimization of choices to increase available options, and is philosophically unrelated to support for or condemnation of "IPv8". This *can* be seen as an opportunity for better functional code organization, such that you could load your "IPv8" code into an already booted kernel to support "IPv8", but I think the onus for the interface code is squarely on your shoulders, not on wholesale integration of "IPv8" into FreeBSD. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.