-----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 protocolsLISP 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
It certainly can. LISP is not taking any detours. I mentioned this at the RRG, on our roadmap for implementation is to test IPv6 EIDs over IPv4 RLOCs.
multiple prefixes is better handled in IPv6, and IMHO we need to get to IPv6 in the not-too-distant future anyway...
We are not designing in serial but in parallel. 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