[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4
On 2007-12-07 15:55, 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?
(Having also read your exchanges with Tony.)
I'm not sure why we would need to do this. Sure, it maintains
the 6to4 primary goal of *not* importing IPv4 DFZ entropy
into the future DFZ, but why does it help us deploy IPv6,
compared with just deploying IPv6? When we run out of IPv4
prefixes three years from now, the incentive to use 6to4 as
a deployment mechanism will fade, and the incentive will be
the availability of native IPv6 prefixes. (I have little doubt
that LISP will be able to enfold IPv6 easily enough when
the time comes.)
Brian
--
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