RE: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4

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

Tony,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Li [mailto:tli@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:33 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: rrg@psg.com
> Subject: 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?

I'm not sure it needs to be NAT-PT due to dual stack and/or
IPv4-in-IPv6 tunneling, but if NAT-PT were used then I don't
know why it wouldn't be co-located on the ITR.

There was an entire discussion session in v6ops yesterday
on tunneling vs translation that involved much more-informed
individuals than myself, and AFAICT there were no conclusions.
So, it would be wrong for me to hazard a guess as to which way
is better at this point.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

> 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