[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4


Fred,
Where did you hide the NAT-PT box? And, once you have the NAT-PT box, why do you need LISP involved? 

Tony


On Dec 7, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:


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