What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same 160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
IPv6 is a loser because everyone has to carry the overhead of bloated packets. It is a one-size-fits-all take it or leave it solution.
By that logic, wouldn't IPv4 also be considered a loser because everyone has been carrying the overhead of bloated packets for years? Especially near the beginning, we didn't need a 32-bit-sized address ... And why would we jump to 64-bit addressing, since you're so worried about the bloat in packets? Wouldn't it be more sensible to move to 36-bit or 40-bit addresses? If we jump to 64, aren't we wasting at least 56 bits per packet then (2 * (64 - 36))? And if we're going to completely re-work IP, why wouldn't we just move to a version that ensures addresses are plentiful? And if we're going to do that, why not just go with 128 bits? Bits are cheap. I mean, really, really, really, REALLY cheap. Trading a few bytes worth in order to get a solution that'll last us for the rest of our lifetimes (and then some) is a no-brainer. However, if you're really interested in it, I suggest you read the message I posted, subject of "Important", a few days ago. It suggests a bloat-free way to continue to grow the existing network. It's completely practical and I think you should promote it. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.