RE: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

Tony,

> Could such a host access IPv4 sites?

Sure; IMHO, leave the IPv4 Internet in-place and (as someone
once articulated to me) "build a second story" on top of the
existing foundation.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Li [mailto:tli@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:57 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: rrg@psg.com
> Subject: Re: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4
> 
> 
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> 
> > I am wondering why there hasn't been more discussion about
> > using LISP as the vehicle to get us to IPv6, e.g. by having
> > EIDs as IPv6 addresses and RLOCs as IPv4 addresses from the
> > onset. A hallway discussion brought up the subject of
> > incremental deployment, but why can't we just use 6to4
> > as the bootstrapping vehicle to get us to LISP/IPv6?
> >
> > By this, I mean that nodes having 2002::/16 EIDs are handled
> > using 6to4 and have the same deployment profile as for 6to4
> > today. Then, we require that nodes having non-6to4 EIDs be
> > deployed behind ETRs. If we then also say that 6to4 relay
> > routers must configure themselves as ITRs and do the necessary
> > map-and-encaps, we have an incremental deployment profile.
> >
> > Any thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> Fred,
> 
> Could such a host access IPv4 sites?
> 
> Tony
> 

--
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