Re: Move forward

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Iljitsch;

> If we can make an upgrade path from type 1 solutions to type 2
> solutions and from type 2 solutions to type 3 solutions, this will
> greatly enhance the prospects of each.

No.

> 1. "No changes" routing-based approaches, ranging from simple (ignore
>    the scalability problem for now) to complex (geo aggregation).
> 
> 2. Weak identifier/locator separation: the identifier is an address
>    usable for routing that is replaced/hidden in transit in some way,
>    typically by a router or middlebox (MHAP, but also
>    tunneling/redirection mechanisms)

The proble is that there is no such solutions.

If you disagree, feel free to use type 1 and 2 solutions with IPv4.

> 3. Strong identifier/locator separation: the identifer isn't an address
>    usable for routing, so the end host must implement the solution
>    (basic multiaddressing as we know it today, SCTP, HIP)

Here is the point where the merit of having longer address could be
deployed.

A point of multi6 is that we can do it from the beginning.

> With those requirements in hand we can apply the "people who say
> something can't be done shouldn't get in the way of the people doing it"
> rule.

You are getting in the way of the people doing type 2 and 3 insisting
that there should be upgrade path from type 1 and 2.

							Masataka Ohta