[members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world

Hi Elad,

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Elad Cohen wrote:
> Christian,
>
> I'm sorry to write, but you didn't understand how IPv4+ works. And everything that you wrote regarding IPv4+ is completely incorrect.

Everything about IPv4+ is completely inpractical.

> "There is no connectivity between IPv4 and IPv4+" - IPv4+ is IPv4, exact same protocol.
>
> "you would need routers to support 33 bit routes which is not going to happen" - This is completely incorrect, route bits are exactly the same.

The ip address is the clients identity. That is how it is routed. Routing cannot route ipv4 and ipv4+ packets to different destinations because packets are routed by the destination address only.

So while the core networks would transpart packets between LIR the LIR themselves would not be able to route packets to different clients.

> "To enable a client to connect to both the IPv4 and IPv4+ internet it seems to me that you would need at least another address family in the socket protocols which is also a massive overhead.  The formatting of the address as two 16 bit values instead of four 8 bit values does not fix the issue in the clients ipv4 stack." - No another address family is needed, the source address and destination are exactly in the four bytes each as they are now - the only difference is the application layer in the operating system - based if the single reserved bit flag is on or off - the ip address will be displayed with one dot (IPv4+) or with three dots (IPv4).

The string represenation of the address is not the criteria how existing socket api work.  The api work internally with 32 bit values.  There is no formatting in them.

> "You cannot route ipv4 and ipv4+ in the same global internet if they are two seprate networks and if the addresses mean different things depending on arbitrary address bits." - It is the same network, IPv4 (I'm calling it IPv4+ to represent the one-dot addressing to higher application layers, but it is the same IPv4 packets, same IPv4 network)

You can only have more addresses if you add bits to the addresses.

> I'm not against IPv6, IPv6 and IPv4 will always co-exist in some way, IPv4+ brings more ip addresses to IPv4, it doesn't disturb a bit IPv6.

it breaks ipv4.

Greetings
Christian

-- 
Christian Kratzer                   CK Software GmbH
Email:   ck at cksoft.de               Wildberger Weg 24/2
Phone:   +49 7032 893 997 - 0       D-71126 Gaeufelden
Fax:     +49 7032 893 997 - 9       HRB 245288, Amtsgericht Stuttgart
Mobile:  +49 171 1947 843           Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Kratzer
Web:     http://www.cksoft.de/