I haven't seen anything, not to say there isn't, but I would certainly be open to the idea. From an operational point of view to me it seems much more straight forward then v6. -jim On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) <nanog2@adns.net> wrote:
Is someone volunteering to work on an RFC? Or, has someone done so for this already?
----- Original Message ----- From: "jim deleskie" <deleskie@gmail.com> To: <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:17 PM Subject: Re: legacy /8
I'm old but maybe not old nuff to know if this was discussed before or not, but I've been asking people last few months why we don't just do something like this. don't even need to get rid of BGP, just add some extension, we see ok to add extensions to BGP to do other things, this makes at least if not more sence.
-jim
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Burwell [mailto:jimb@jsbc.cc] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: legacy /8
So, jump through hoops to kludge up IPv4 so it continues to provide address space for new allocations through multiple levels of NAT (or whatever), and buy a bit more time, or jump through the hoops required to deploy IPv6 and eliminate the exhaustion problem? And also, if the IPv4 space is horse-traded among RIRs and customers as you allude to above, IPv6 will look even more attactive as the price and
preciousness
of IPv4 addresses increases.
No problem, everyone tunnels v4 in v4 and the "outer" ip address is your 32-bit ASN and you get an entire /0 of "legacy" ip space inside your ASN. Just need to get rid of BGP and go to some sort of label switching with the border routers having an ASN to upstream label table and there ya go. Oh, and probably create an AA RR in DNS that is in ASN:x.x.x.x format. Increase the MTU a little and whammo! There ya go! Done.
:)