[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Locator/identifier separation : assumptions on locators
Tony,
>
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 6:10 PM, Scott W Brim wrote:
>
>> I don't see any gain in VLAs
>> at this point, but we might as well explicitly discuss the idea and
>> decide so. The packet header form will follow the address form.
>
>
> Perhaps we should reverse this. Do we agree that we're working with
> v6/v4 header formats? If so, then there's no way of doing a VLA (or VLL).
I think that if we want to make progress in the RRG, there should be
competition between different proposals. I hope that several different
proposals for a new architecture will be developped within the group.
Concerning the utilization of locators, it seems reasonable to assume
that they will be of fixed size if the proposed solution is built on top
of IPv4 or IPv6. If the solution relies on another "infrastructure" than
IPv4/v6, then VLL might be an option.
Olivier
--
CSE Dept. UCL, Belgium - http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~obo
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg