[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    (IPng 2672) Re: larger AS/RD space for v6?
From:       Tony Li <tli () jnx ! com>
Date:       1996-12-24 19:36:07
[Download RAW message or body]


   I don't know if more is needed.  But preparing to implement your 8+8
   proposal I can't see more than 14bits needed for the LSID.  Then the
   rest of bits is a real lot for subscribers.  Then in the low order
   8bytes we only have 15 for the partition.  SHould someone use up that
   partition I see no reason why the subscriber could not provide some of
   the subscriber bits to the private topology if needed?  This affects how
   I would implement the transport and dns stuff fyi...

I'd like to point out that ANYTHING that "knows" about the internal
structure of the address is probably a mistake.  It constrains the future
flexibility of the system, thereby eliminating future adaptability.  Basic
engineering demands that create the absolute minimum in internal
interdependencies.  Thus, the address should be wholly opaque outside of
the routing system.

Imagine what would have happened if, for example, TCP _knew_ about Class B
addresses.

Tony

p.s.: You shouldn't even know the length of it.  Hint, hint.  ;-)

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]