I didn't quite say nothing would need to be changed, only that the changes would be by and large very minimal, some new cases in the existing IPv4 stacks, rather than an entirely new stack. Particularly for hosts, if this bit (flag, whatever) is set be sure to copy the entire IP packet into your dest headers. The extended addressing I describe could probably be mostly implemented in hosts as a new ICMP option for extended addressing. On October 6, 2019 at 17:58 valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu (Valdis Klētnieks) wrote:
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 17:47:24 -0400, bzs@theworld.com said:
All a strictly IPv4 only host/router would need to understand in that case is the IHL, which it does already, and how to interpret whatever flag/option is used to indicate the presence of additional address bits mostly to ignore it or perhaps just enough to know to drop it if it's not implemented.
So... how would a strict IPv4 router handle the case where 8.8.4.5.13.9/40 should be routed to Cogent, but 8.8.4.5.17.168/40 should be routed via Hurricane Electric, and no you can't just route to wherever 8.8.4.5 goes because there's yet another peering war and nobody's baked a cake yet, so sending packets for either route to the wrong link will cause blackholing?
x[DELETED ATTACHMENT <no suggested filename>, application/pgp-signature]
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*