RE: [RRG] loc/id split and LISP

[Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com>]

*> Agree. The deploying cost of IPv6 is quite expensive. I started to
*> work on
*> IPv6 and IPv6 transition since 2001. By that time, we
*> optimistically think
*> IPv6 could replace IPv4 in 2 or 3 years giving its maturity of basic
*> protocols and massive advantages. Now, I have to say that we
*> underestimated
*> the deploying cost, a lot. One more thing to be mentioned, IPv6
*> provides a
*> lot transition approaches to support IPv4/IPv6 coexist. So far, I
*> have not
*> seen such efforts in HIP or Node ID. (I may volunteer to do so.)
*> And in
*> order to obtain the biggest benefit of HIP or Node ID, globally
*> deployment
*> is requested. Therefore, transition solutions may not solve the
*> problems.
*
*One could consider doing a combination of adding a new namespace and
*deploying IPv6. If the cost of deployment is too great for putting
*IPv6 on hosts, then use IPv4 in hosts as the EID namespace and IPv6
*deployed in the core as the locator namespace.

It is a good suggestion, Dino. However, it may be a little bit late. The
deployment IPv6 has been ongoing for years. It might be easier if we tried
to combine these two when IPv6 was initially designed. On the other hand,
the doubt on IPv6 is becoming more and more while the deployment and
transition takes much longer than originally expected, and seems still need
a quite long time.

*If it is easier or more necessary to run IPv6 in the hosts, then the
*opposite could occur. In fact this later case is probably more
*necessary so we can have a larger address space that addresses all
*the hosts in the Internet with IPv6 EIDs and use locators as IPv4
*addresses with an IPv4-only core substrate.
*
*Dino



--
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