--- g...@space.net wrote:
From: Gert Doering <g...@space.net>
To: Scott Weeks <sur...@mauigateway.com>
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 02:53:41PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> I was not around for those discussions (and not being a computer
> science person, nor wanting to go on this for too long as has been
> endlessly done on other lists), but it seems TLV would have allowed
> 4 to be a subset of the new space. I never heard that discussed
> much and that's what I meant by my comment.
The point is: if you introduce a change to the packet format (and TLV
would be), you are no longer compatible with IPv4. Which makes the
whole "I want this to be compatible so I do not have to change infra
or end points" totally moot.
Worse, then you have "old IPv4" and "new IPv4" machines who might or
might not be able to talk to each other, depending on which IPv4 address
the "new IPv4" got (a long one or a short one) - while with IPv6, you have
unmodified old IPv4 to ensure compatibility during the transition, and
then you turn it off (in 10 years or so).
---------------------------------------------------
I guess all ways IETF participants thought of a new
address space would not have allowed backwards
compatibility with IPv4?
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.
Hopefully, others here find it interesting, too.
scott
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
