RE: old GSE idea

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Sounds like good exercise to me.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:40 AM
> To: Multi6 Working Group
> Subject: Re: old GSE idea
> 
> 
> I think we should fly up one level and discuss a hypothetical 
> world in which addresses in A000::/3 are deemed to be mutable 
> in flight between bits 3 and 47 inclusive. See what it does 
> to TCP, SCTP and IPSEC for example. Then fly down again and look 
> at the idea of doing GSE within A000::/3.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> Sean Doran wrote:
> > 
> > On Thursday, Apr 10, 2003, at 06:41 Europe/London, Peter 
> Tattam wrote:
> > 
> > > I wonder if some of it may be relevant to recent 
> discussions.  (you 
> > > might want to ignore the junk about ARPing for routing 
> id's - that 
> > > probably won't
> > > fly)
> > > The relevant bit is the break up of the address bits.  
> Apologies if 
> > > it resembles other drafts.
> > 
> > No need to apologize.
> > 
> > In general, the idea is that there is a bit of space that 
> is free for 
> > the network to rewrite at will because it is not an 
> end-to-end value.
> > One way of looking at it is that it is a way of cooperating with NAT
> > by way of a trade-off: sacrifice a part of the address for 
> the network
> > to adjust, and constrain the amount of work host developers 
> need to do
> > to accomodate their existence.   There is probably a more p.c. way
> > of putting this, but I am not the department of warm and 
> fuzzy feelings.
> > 
> > Personally, I like this approach because it's obviously workable 
> > today. However, I prefer at this point to consider the option of 
> > unifying the v4 and v6 Internet routing tables for operational 
> > reasons, at least for now. Perry Metzger and I  had a friendly 
> > (well...) exchange about this on a public list some time 
> ago (3-4 Dec 
> > 1999).  The general idea is that leveraging off v4 experience and 
> > expertise is attractive to large operators
> > and other in-the-core supporting organizations, and is acceptable
> > to host-side and other at-the-edge folks because it needn't 
> get in the
> > way
> > thanks to tunneling, 6to4 and the like.
> > 
> > So, rather than maintain a routing system specific to GSE, 
> as in your
> > GSE+,
> > why not just stuff a v4 address into the v6 one, such that the v4 
> > address (for example) describes the decapsulation point of an 
> > IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel?
> > 
> > This doesn't seem to be prima facie at variance with your old idea, 
> > which correctly identifies an effective requirement for an 
> "AFI"-like
> > subfield in the
> > higher-order bits of the v6 address in order to experiment with
> > different
> > routing and addressing semantics within the existing v6 address and
> > header syntax.
> > 
> >         Sean.
> 
> -- 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> - - Brian E Carpenter 
> Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
> On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland
> 
>