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

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> My first impression on reading over your HRA proposal is that it
> involves changed host behaviour.
Yes.

> 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.
HRA should be looked as a long-term solution, like HIP or Node ID
architecture.

> 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.
It's something about the tradeoff between investment and benefit. The final
choice depends on the requirements of the future Internet service, e.g.
security, huge amount of address, end-to-end transparency principle for easy
deployment of new service.

Best wishes,
Xiaohu XU


--
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