[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Architectural approaches to multi6

To: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
Subject: Re: Architectural approaches to multi6
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:22:05 +0100
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian@hursley.ibm.com>, <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B03ABCE34@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>

On dinsdag, maa 25, 2003, at 20:31 Europe/Amsterdam, Bound, Jim wrote:

No one uses FQDN's above IP till one gets to the Application layer. Why
do you say this?

I don't think I was saying that people are doing this today.

Also we need a solution that does not assume this at all.

Why not?

Doing this would at best be nice to have long term. THere is also no way to enforce it.

So there we have our long term goal. If we can get there by using 16 byte values that look enough like IPv6 addresses to fool existing implementations for a while but label them "identifier - not to be used in routing" I don't have a problem with that.

References:
- RE: Architectural approaches to multi6
  - From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Architectural approaches to multi6
Next by Date: RE: Architectural approaches to multi6
Previous by thread: RE: Architectural approaches to multi6
Next by thread: RE: Architectural approaches to multi6
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread