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.