Re: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

"J. Noel Chiappa" wrote:
> 
>     > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
> 
>     > I feel that the challenge is actually not in the Internet Protocol
>     > address at all. IPv6 *unmodified* is entirely capable of supporting a
>     > namespace independent of topology
> 
> Syntax != Semantics.
> 
> Just because you have a single namespace that you can allocate both "where"
> and "who" names from doesn't mean you're done.

Of course, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

> 
> Unless you start using multiple headers (which is sort of already specified,
> which is why I like 16+16, although it has all the obvious "source routing"
> security bugs), there's only a single IPv6 address field in "IPv6
> *unmodified*", so it's kind of hard to do both with one field.

I'm not sure I've seen the 16+16 draft. But it is my assumption that
any solution is going to involve an additional mapping stage
that we don't have today.

    Brian