From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 8 19:56:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA29262 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:56:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from doorstep.unety.net (root@usi-00-10.Naperville.unety.net [204.70.107.30]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA29257 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [206.31.202.8]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA03344; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:51:12 -0500 Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BB2595.DC1C0800@webster.unety.net>; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:53:45 -0500 Message-ID: <01BB2595.DC1C0800@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: Jim Fleming , "'Louis A. Mamakos'" Cc: "'Bill Fenner'" , "hackers@freebsd.org" , "terry@lambert.org" Subject: RE: Check IP Version Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:53:44 -0500 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 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