On 2007-12-20 09:32, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Ran, first off, really good post.So I would suggest that folks think about IPv4 and IPv6 solution approaches separately. For example, while one might want one of the existing proposal for IPv4 (partly for expediency and partly because IPv4 has more constraints), one might well want a different more architecturally fundamental change for IPv6 (partly because the protocol is more flexible due to extra bits in the header and partly because we have more time to study, prototype, and design a more elegant solution).So let me propose something: 1) For IPv4, use LISP encapsulation as spec'ed in the -05 draft. 2) For IPv6, use header address translation (of the high-order 8-bytes), spec that out as GSE++.
As far as I can tell, that whole line of thinking was thrown out of the boat when the RIRs and ISPs declined to accept the recommendation that *all* site prefixes should be /48 or shorter. I don't see any way to revive a (6+2)+8 type of proposal now, unless you can figure out how to deal with variable length routing goop. (That's the underlying reason why shim6 deals exclusively with /128s, too.)
3) Have both use the same mapping database infrastructure.
That's certainly correct, if you can overcome the problem just
noted.
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