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

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

Dino, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:dino@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:47 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Victor Grishchenko; Tony Li; Routing Research Group list
> Subject: Re: [RRG] Re: [RAM] Different approaches for 
> different protocols
> 
> > LISP is in some sense a step backwards since it assumes that
> > sites won't be running multiple prefixes, so the only use
> > of multiple addresses will be link local v. ULA v. PI.
> 
> Sites *can* have multiple EID-prefixes in LISP, and they will occur  
> when small EID-prefix blocks are allocated because a site under- 
> estimated the number of systems it has to number.

Then, why not have LISP cut straight to the chase and
go straight to IPv6 in the EID space (leave the RLOC
space as IPv4)? To my understanding, management of
multiple prefixes is better handled in IPv6, and IMHO
we need to get to IPv6 in the not-too-distant future
anyway...

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

--
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