It's fun with all these proposals that so many people think they make sense, presumably including their authors.
This one has a bunch of grave problems.
1. Notice that the address space shortage is not in fact alleviated although it is shy about admitting that. Nobody who doesn't have addresses gets addresses from this scheme. Instead, everybody who already has addresses gets even more of the new addresses and the author simply hopes they'll choose to give them away to those who don't have any. You know, like that time Bobby Kotick got a huge bonus and so he gave the money to er... oh right, he just kept the money.
2. But wait, how would they give away these addresses? The author proposes they can just give away a /29 at a time. In fact, a IPv4 /29 is not routable as a global route, so this will not work. The smallest size you can carve out from the global routes is a /24 and every time you do this you're making things worse for everybody in the backbone game by increasing fragmentation, gosh they're going to be pleased about so much of this "charity".
3. OK, well maybe instead of giving away addresses, our Good Samaritans will give back their existing allocation and take only one /24 for their own network now that is plenty big enough with the new addresses. But that means they must renumber absolutely everything which is one of the things this proposal was supposed to avoid and all their services lose the ability to interoperate properly with everybody who didn't upgrade yet, getting a degraded "sort of like NAT" mode until everybody in the world upgrades. Suckers.
4. It doesn't bother fixing all the other related infrastructure. That work was done for IPv6. PKIX works for IPv6 (certificates for e.g. the DNS service 1.1.1.1 contain IPv6 addresses, no you can't just write any arbitrary text, that's not how it works at all), DNS works for IPv6, all the fancy modern stuff works for IPv6, but you need to begin over for this "Enhanced IP" and the paper neither proposes any way to avoid that, nor does it include all that work, so you're beginning very late in 2012.
Still, there have been much worse attempted solutions written up. My favourites are the ones which don't realise addresses are just bits and propose we can fix everything by writing bigger numbers like 300.400.500.600 ...
> My favourites are the ones which don't realise addresses are just bits and propose we can fix everything by writing bigger numbers like 300.400.500.600 ...
My favorite was one which "realized" that addresses are just bits in the physical wire and proposed to use intermediate values for these bits (that is, using more than two voltages). I wish I had bookmarked that one, it was truly baffling. It was wrong on so many levels that it was hard to know where to start.
This one has a bunch of grave problems.
1. Notice that the address space shortage is not in fact alleviated although it is shy about admitting that. Nobody who doesn't have addresses gets addresses from this scheme. Instead, everybody who already has addresses gets even more of the new addresses and the author simply hopes they'll choose to give them away to those who don't have any. You know, like that time Bobby Kotick got a huge bonus and so he gave the money to er... oh right, he just kept the money.
2. But wait, how would they give away these addresses? The author proposes they can just give away a /29 at a time. In fact, a IPv4 /29 is not routable as a global route, so this will not work. The smallest size you can carve out from the global routes is a /24 and every time you do this you're making things worse for everybody in the backbone game by increasing fragmentation, gosh they're going to be pleased about so much of this "charity".
3. OK, well maybe instead of giving away addresses, our Good Samaritans will give back their existing allocation and take only one /24 for their own network now that is plenty big enough with the new addresses. But that means they must renumber absolutely everything which is one of the things this proposal was supposed to avoid and all their services lose the ability to interoperate properly with everybody who didn't upgrade yet, getting a degraded "sort of like NAT" mode until everybody in the world upgrades. Suckers.
4. It doesn't bother fixing all the other related infrastructure. That work was done for IPv6. PKIX works for IPv6 (certificates for e.g. the DNS service 1.1.1.1 contain IPv6 addresses, no you can't just write any arbitrary text, that's not how it works at all), DNS works for IPv6, all the fancy modern stuff works for IPv6, but you need to begin over for this "Enhanced IP" and the paper neither proposes any way to avoid that, nor does it include all that work, so you're beginning very late in 2012.
Still, there have been much worse attempted solutions written up. My favourites are the ones which don't realise addresses are just bits and propose we can fix everything by writing bigger numbers like 300.400.500.600 ...