Re: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]

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

On donderdag, apr 17, 2003, at 19:59 Europe/Amsterdam, Tony Li wrote:

> |    Ignoring the DNS for a moment... I think the original GSE
> |    called for
> |    the border routers to rewrite packets, but this could
> |    nearly as easily
> |    happen in a middlebox, or even in the host itself.
> While those locations are not impossible, the most natural place
> for it is in the border router or the provider edge router.
So how would intra-site routing work? By clearing the 45 routing bits 
when the packet arrives at the edge?

> |    I guess it would be possible to do this without changing
> |    the network layer but I wouldn't bet on it.
> I don't believe that it's a requirement to change the syntax
> of the network layer header.  The semantics, of course, must
> change.  IMHO, this is a good thing.
Why is this good?

In earlier discussions, I think we (that is, at least some of us) 
reached the conclusion that a 16+16 mechanism, where we have something 
that looks enough like a regular IPv6 unicast address to be forwarded 
by existing routers, would be similar in nature, but easier to deploy 
than 8+8 and presumably also 5.625+6.375.