Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

El 29/06/2004, a las 13:49, Brian E Carpenter escribió:

> Eik Nordmark wrote:
> > > what about cgas?
> > > They are locators, so you can use them for refferals to non multi6 
> > > apps and hosts, they allow to map from id to locators using reverse 
> > > dns, and they are crypto in nature
> > > seems a good candidate to me :-)
> > A downside of CGA approaches is that they would, on a global basis,
> > cast the /64 subnet prefix boundary in stone forever.
> > This is different than SeND which only assumes the /64 on a single 
> > link,
> > and one can envision SeND evolving to handle different subnet prefix 
> > lengths
> > over time.
> > Different people probably have very different level of concern for
> > "/64 forever in stone" ranging from it being a good simplification
> > to a fatal repeat of the 8 bit IPv4 network number + 24 bit host 
> > number
> > (before Class B and C was invented).
>
> Good point. The /64 boundary is only "architectural" in one place, 
> stateless
> autoconfig, and even that is a changeable decision.
>
> CGAs have other downsides for multihoming, too.

such as?

regards, marcelo

>    Brian