re: [RRG] On "jack-down" models

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> Please note that my goal was 'independence', not separation.  I have no
> problem with some nodes having points in both namespaces.  That's not a
big
> deal.  The interesting property to me is that one should be able to
function
> within one namespace without resulting in changes to the other namespace.
> 
> For example, one could embed their v4 identifier into their v6 locator.
> This would create a coupling between the locators and identifiers that I
> would expect would cause problems.

I don't know the real meaning of adopting v6 address as locator space, in
fact, we can adopt global IPv4+local IPv4 (see IPNL) or LD ID+IPv4 (see HRA)
scheme to extend IPv4 address space, which are relatively lower cost for
deployment. However, I do believe we need a new namespace for identifier
which can provide enough space in a long run, for example, IPv6( or CGA like
address format), E.164, HIT (flat label in HIP). These names (including IPv6
address) are ONLY used as identifiers.

Best wishes,
Xiaohu XU



--
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