Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 22:48:06 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net> Cc: "'Bill Fenner'" <fenner@parc.xerox.com>, "terry@lambert.org" <terry@lambert.org>, "hackers@freebsd.org" <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Check IP Version Message-ID: <199604090248.WAA06191@whizzo.transsys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Apr 1996 18:05:24 CDT." <01BB2575.F67FE9C0@webster.unety.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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..? 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. What IPv6 does is promote easy renumbering to allow for much higher degrees of route aggregation. louie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604090248.WAA06191>