Re: [RRG] Evolutionary Possibilities

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-02-19 11:24, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Ran,
> 
>> The functional
>> requirement would be that the enhanced IPv6 remain backwards
>> compatible with existing IPv6 -- for the near term.
> 
> Right -- things like this should indeed be possible. Just to confirm
> from my IETF perspective: if needed, we can add new features or
> functions to IPv6 if the backwards compatibility is retained. Or even to
> IPv4. We do it all the time...
> 
> (But I am not quite sure what your exact proposal is, maybe there will
> be a draft on this later? And note that, quite obviously, there has to
> be incentives for people to add those things in their networks and hosts
> or else none of this will get deployed.)

I can't help pointing out that shim6 *is* evolutionary in exactly the
sense Ran suggests - bog standard RFC2460 hosts will just not be able
to play, and shim6 hosts will understand this and stop trying to
use the shim. I see no reason personally why we shouldn't use a
similar approach for enhanced hosts to interact with a loc/id system.
To provide the incentive, there has to be enhanced connectivity
as a reward.

   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