Re: [RRG] Re: [RAM] Different approaches for different protocols

[Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>]

> > You do realize this requires a lot of site changes. Readdressing  
> > routers and doing longest match after the 6 bytes. Then the  
> > question is what if you want to use variable length subnet masks  
> > across your domain, etc.
>
>
> Yes, certainly anyone who has v6 already deployed would be  
> inconvenienced.  However, I'm not willing to sacrifice the  
> architecture of the net to grandfather those few folks in forever.   
> If they want to play, they should renumber.
>
> Again, we can start in a specific prefix so that we can have  
> interoperability and have a rolling migration.  However, everyone  
> *should* play the same game, eventually.

And the router changes to do a different type of longest match?

And in the ETR case, the forwarding algorithm is different as well.  
Because you have to tell your FIB to match on high-order bits only to  
determine the packet needs to be translated.

GSE "appears" to be a good idea but the devil is in the details. Could  
be completely different for host-based GSE.

Dino

--
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