On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Patrick Frejborg <pfrejb...@gmail.com>wrote:
[PF] Yes, but what I had in mind is an extended IPv4 where 32 bits > are reserved for the core and 32 bits are reserved for the edges - > happens to be the same size as IPv6, i.e. 64 bits (prefix space). The > old devices can still use IPv4 for internal communications with legacy > applications, once a device needs to communicate outside the edge > network it needs to use the 64 bit address space, which is backwards > compatible with the legacy IPv4 address space. No NAT, no tunneling > nor locator rewriting with the help of an identifier is mandatory > though those technologies can be used if desired. > At least, there's one who like this, the 'unprofessional' me. A further exploration I might do is name the nodes, not the interfaces like now, with the IPv4 addresses... which way you might not like. Anyway, I support this core-edge decoupled addressing. -- DY
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
