
IPv4 Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem - Sami_Lehtinen
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2020-April/003676.html
======
ktpsns
This idea basically proposes to add one bit to the 32 bit addresses, i.e. use
33 bits. The notation is irrelevant, the money quote is

> We need to have a mark, a flag, in the ip packet header

You needed to end this bit also everywhere else -- in routing tables, etc. It
is quite obvious that this "minor change" is actually quite a major change, in
a world where a 33bit address requires 5 bytes to store, not only 4 bytes.

~~~
tssva
It is actually more complicated than that. It proposes the use of one of the
reserved IP flag bits to indicated whether the packet includes "IPv4+"
addresses and then re-use of the already used DF and MF flag bits to indicated
whether the source or destination addresses are "IPv4+" Since these flags are
already used for packet fragmentation IPv4+ packets could not be fragmented so
it also requires implementing a path mtu discovery protocol for udp since
current path mtu discovery using ICMP is broken.

------
icedchai
I read this and thought it was a joke. IPv4+ is more work than just moving to
IPv6.

