Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!VAX.FTP.COM!stev From: stev@VAX.FTP.COM Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Running out of Internet addresses? Message-ID: <8811282038.AA15464@vax.ftp.com> Date: 28 Nov 88 20:38:23 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 23 *We should be worried about this and should be thinking about how to expand *the available address space. Possibilities include adopting ISO IP *numbering (variable length - non-trivial), introducing a 64 bit *format (a new IP version number would probably be needed), adding *an extended address option (awkward, I suspect), others? *Vint Cerf if we are talking about this (and it seems we are), we also wanna think about issuing newtalk-IP addresses based on location instead of political boundries like they are now. i am not sure that this is the correct way to go, but routing becomes alot easier. i do think that variable length addresses are a *bad* idea. they make life *so* much more compilicated. like, where does the addressing stop? does it include the port number? coul dit include other, higher level information (processid? userid?). this is general to IP addresses, variable or fixed length. *do* we want routing information in the address? how much? explicit routes, or general "this is where one might find me" information? IP version 5 is something we could thrash about for months . . . . . .