|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IPv8 < IPv6
Yes, and when my mother didn't make me go to bed at night, I was
rather cranky, and tardy in my multiplication tables and spelling
exercises the next day.
That we can impose strict hierarchy on address allocations (like
our friends at RIPE, APNIC, and InterNIC have done) is part of the
reason our networking system has assumed a somewhat manageable
growth wrt addressnig.
Big Brother impositions are fine, if the benevolent dictatorship
really is altruistic. (in community space allocation)
-alan
DISCLAIMER -- THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY THAT I SUPPORT, CONDONE, OR
AGREE WITH JIM FLEMING. RATHER I HARBOR FEARS THAT
HE FLIRTS WITH DANGEROUS CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES, AND
PERCEIVES THE WORLD IN A MANNER UNLIKE ANY OF SANE
MIND AND BODY.
Quoting Jay R. Ashworth ([email protected]):
> On Thu, Nov 06, 1997 at 10:16:56AM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
> > There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8
> > addressing....8 regions, 256 distribution centers
> > in each region and full 32 bit Internets from there.
> > IPv8 addresses can fit inside the IPv6 address fields.
>
> The problem here, as I see it, is that this _imposes_ a hierarchical
> structure onto the physical design on the net, which has not been the
> observed pattern of growth.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth [email protected]
> Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
> The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an
> Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
|