On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:57 AM Brielle <bruns@2mbit.com> wrote:
There's a fundamental lack of understanding from people on why you can't just 'bolt on' more addresses to IPv4. Data structures in memory, software APIs and syscalls, hex notations, subnetting, route determination and propigation with internet routing protocols like BGP, hardware CAM, among many other things.
Hi Brielle, http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html Someone said much as you did way back in 2007. It bugged me, this defeatism that said there was no way IPv4 could have been incrementally updated to support more addresses, that a greenfield protocol was the only path forward. So I designed an upgrade factoring in the need for pre- and post-upgrade stacks and networks to interoperate over a period of years. It took all of 4 printed pages. It's clear IPv6 is the path forward. It was clear in 2007. But don't for a second believe that's because IPv4 could not have been upgraded in place. That's a failure of imagination. I now return you to the scheduled brawl between Guilmette and Cohen. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/