Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF
Owen DeLong via NANOG <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.nanog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Host A is at address 65534:192.168.2.3 Host B is at address 192.168.2.3 How, exactly, do you think these two hosts magically exchange packets? Host B has no IPv8 stack and no ability to produce an IPv8 packet with the extra 32 octets. Host A must be 100% backwards compatible to live up to your claims. Yes, I realize my example involves a private ASN and a public address. Substitute overlapping public addresses if you prefer, the point remains. Owen > On May 2, 2026, at 05:56, Jamie Thain via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mikael > > And what isn't backwards compatible if you know of something. I'm all ears. > > Jamie > > On Sat., May 2, 2026, 6:18 a.m. Mikael Abrahamsson, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 May 2026, Jamie Thain wrote: >> >>> Ipv10 Was A dual stack idea. >> >> Everything that isn't IPv4 will be a new stack. This was realised already >> in the 90s, and that's why we have IPv6 that's now close to 30 years into >> its deployment. Adding another stack in the mix won't help. >> >> If you would have done what you're doing back in mid 90s, it might have >> helped. You're 3 decades too late. >> >>> Again since you can't do the analysis steps then just send me a tape >>> recording. >> >> There is nothing to analyze. You're proposing something that isn't >> backwards compatible, and you don't seem to understand this is what you're >> proposing. Same as IPv10 guy. >> >> So start implementing, you might understand it then. >> >> -- >> Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/Z4YOGRDCPBOG5SGSQPC4A3FDICSYLJYB/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/PELOMWU6AWHRV4KV6XBVFFU7O2AMMFEE/