Re: Move forward

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> > Essentially, 2 is a subset of 3.

> You are saying your classification is meaningless.

No, I'm pretty much sure you're saying this. But then I firmly believe
that everything is meaningless except for the meaning we choose to
bestow upon any particular thing. If you find my my classification
meaningless that's ok, I'll use it as long as it suits my needs.

> We can move forward a little if you admit that, by definition,
> weak separation is not a subset of strong separation.

> The hard part, then, is to define what are "weak" and "strong".

Feel free to suggest better names for the classes.

> > If we want to do 2
> > at all there's the problem that everyone has to implement it before it
> > works.

> Remember that my 8+8 with doubtlessly-strong separation is
> interoperating with leagacy IPv6 stack that it can be deployed
> gradually.

??? How?

> The problem of deploying type 1 is that it will bloat global routing
> table unnecessarily, which can not be restored later.

My point is that this isn't necessarily the case: if we start giving out
PI space that is simply allowed in the global routing table, we have
bloat. But if at some point a type 2 solution becomes available, we can
simply start moving in the middleboxes and after a suitable transition
period the PI /48s can be removed from the global routing table because
the middleboxes translate all the traffic. It should be possible to do
this in a way that is transparent to end hosts.