| |||||||||||||
TP/IX and similar plansTP/IX and similar plansPosted Feb 5, 2011 16:46 UTC (Sat) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)In reply to: TP/IX and similar plans by tialaramex Parent article: LCA: Vint Cerf on re-engineering the Internet
First, no one would have to dual stack. Same stack, larger address space. Routers would do wire format conversion where necessary. Second, technical errors in the TP/IX RFC have no bearing on the merit of the principle described. The IETF was just incredibly short sighted on that point, preferring a start over from scratch design to one where the transition would be practically seamless.
In short, the counterargument here has to be not against the weaknesses of a seventeen year old network proposal per se, but rather against the entire idea of preserving the existing address space on a long term basis without renumbering.
(Log in to post comments)
TP/IX and similar plans Posted Feb 9, 2011 14:21 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
"Same stack, larger address space"
Reality isn't interested in proof by assertion, if I call a frog a bird it will not make it fly. TP/IX is a completely new stack. "Just" widening the address field (which is not what TP/IX does) is like "just" adding an extra floor to the middle of every house in the country.
"no one would have to dual stack"
"routers would do wire format conversion"
Do you even read what you're writing? In order to "do wire format conversion" the routers not only need to have both stacks, but they have to be able to convert from one to the other, a major additional expense. Worse, for TP/IX (and any alternative I can imagine) this is stateful. So the plan becomes "instead of buying an expensive IPv4 and IPv6 router, buy an even more expensive IPv4 and TP/IX router-converter" and you've made things worse, not better.
"technical errors in the TP/IX RFC have no bearing on the merit of the principle described. The IETF was just incredibly short sighted"
Of course, how stupid of me. It doesn't need to actually work, someone who needs things to work is being "short sighted". I can't address problems in a non-existent alternative and neither can the IETF.
Fortunately thanks to such "short sighted" people we have a plan, not a painless or easy plan, but one that will work. Now it remains to be seen if everyone will implement it, and how long that will take.
|
|||||||||||||