nanog mailing list archives
RE: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: Kevin Menzel <kevin.menzel () sheridancollege ca>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:13:43 +0000
Bits is bits.
A fixed length bit field and a variable length bit field are incredibly different beasts at the hardware level. Knowing
exactly after how many bits you can make a routing or switching decision is ... pretty darned useful.
Kevin Menzel
Infrastructure Analyst
Sheridan College
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org> On Behalf Of bzs () theworld com
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 5:43 PM
To: John Levine <johnl () iecc com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org; bzs () theworld com
Subject: Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment
OK OK OK.
Can I summarize the current round of objections to my admittedly off-beat proposal (use basically URLs rather than IP
addresses in IP packet src/dest) as:
We can't do that! It would require changing something!
I've no doubt many here are comfortable with the current architecture.
Bits is bits.
URLs are, to a machine, just bit strings though they do incorporate a hierarchical structure which isn't that
dissimilar from current network/host parts of IP addresses.
URLs are an obvious candidate to consider because they're in use, seem to basically work to identify routing endpoints,
and are far from a random, out of thin air, choice.
Given the vast improvements in hardware since we last seriously thought about this (ca. 1990, IPv6) perhaps this
worship of bit-twiddling and bit-packing may be a bit (haha) like those who once objected to anything but machine
language programming because HLLs were so inefficient!
P.S. It was from a talk I gave in Singapore to the local HackerSpace and intended to provoke thought and discussion but
not just "no, we can't do that because that's not the way we do things."
--
-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*
Current thread:
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Harris (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment John R. Levine (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 10)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Tony Finch (Oct 10)
- RE: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Kevin Menzel (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Palmer (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Forrest Christian (List Account) (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Rob McEwen (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 07)
