RE: [RRG] A new draft about Hierarchical Routing Architecture

[<louise.burness@bt.com>]

But there is quite a lot of v6 support in hosts, perhaps more so than in
networks? 

One of the tricks with migration is that there is a benefit to the
person who migrates. A crytpo ID gives potentially some security related
benefits (whether they are wanted or not is another question) therefore
there may be a motivation to add that to a host.

On the other hand, the tunnel proposals seem to require end sites (or
providers on their behalf) to do a lot of work so that the core routing
system can scale better?  

Louise

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] On Behalf 
> Of Robin Whittle
> Sent: 16 November 2007 12:42
> To: Routing Research Group
> Cc: Xu Xiaohu
> Subject: Re: [RRG] A new draft about Hierarchical Routing Architecture
> 
> Hi Xu,
> 
> My first impression on reading over your HRA proposal is that 
> it involves changed host behaviour.
> 
> If this is the case, then I don't think HRA can be considered 
> alongside LISP, eFIT-APT, Ivip or TRRP - all of which are 
> intended to work for current and future hosts without any new 
> host host requirements.
> 
> I think HRA or any other system which requires host changes 
> is probably about as hard to introduce as IPv6: There seems 
> to be no strong enough immediate benefit for most early 
> adopters to create anything like widespread or ubiquitous 
> adoption - and in the meantime (~= forever) all ordinary 
> Internet users still need full
> IPv4 connectivity.
> 
>   - Robin
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

--
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