> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc] > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 11:48 PM > To: George Bonser > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: legacy /8 > > On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc] > >> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM > >> To: nanog@nanog.org > >> Subject: Re: legacy /8 > >> > > > > > > Seriously though, would that really be easier to implement, or be > better > than IPv6 as this point? I'd think the IETF would probably have > considered solutions like that, but IPv6 is what we got. So best learn > to love it. :P > > -Jim >
That is true and we have little choice at this point but we had 10 years and simply encapsulating v4 in v4 could have been implemented at the router level years ago with little problem years ago. And forget about the IETF at this point because they would not have had to be involved with this. It is operating within the v4 spec that was already specified, they would not have had to do anything. Call it v4^2 and implement it initially at the router level and then eventually customer demand pulls it down to the end system level with tcp/ipip becoming the standard. It was really just a muse (the point of the smiley at the end). I will be in the process of deploying v6 once I get a current project put to bed. Where did I put that helmet? G
