Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:53:44 -0500 From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net> To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net>, "'Louis A. Mamakos'" <louie@TransSys.COM> Cc: "'Bill Fenner'" <fenner@parc.xerox.com>, "hackers@freebsd.org" <hackers@freebsd.org>, "terry@lambert.org" <terry@lambert.org> Subject: RE: Check IP Version Message-ID: <01BB2595.DC1C0800@webster.unety.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, April 08, 1996 9:48 PM, Louis A. Mamakos[SMTP:louie@TransSys.COM] wrote: @ @> Of course in C+@nIP (or IPv8 as some call it)...we only use the single high bit @> of the IP version field as a flag. The other three bits of the version field are @> borrowed for other purposes along with the Header Length and Checksum fields. @> This does not exactly follow the "spec" but it provides us with the flags we @> need to grow our way out of the suppsed IP address shortage. @ @So I guess there can't be an IPv9..? @ That is technically correct...see... http://comm.unety.net/US/IL/Naperville/Unir Of course...It depends on which Internet you are on...:-) @Of course the real problem is not a shortage of addresses, it's a @surplus of globally visible routes and their associated dyanmic @behavior which default-less routers on the Internet have to deal with. @There's oodles of space in the class-A space available. @ This is true...if people really beleived that IPv6 was going to happen then the current IP allocation policies would reflect the fact that a fix is just around the corner... @What IPv6 does is promote easy renumbering to allow for much higher @degrees of route aggregation. @ At some expense...there are always time, space and deployment trade-offs... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01BB2595.DC1C0800>