RE: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean

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

Comments below:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:xuxh@huawei.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:37 AM
>To: 'Brian E Carpenter'
>Cc: 'Randall Atkinson'; 'David R Oran'; rrg@psg.com
>Subject: re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean
>
>
>
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
>> 发送时间: 2008年4月9日 6:56
>> 收件人: Xu Xiaohu
>> 抄送: 'Randall Atkinson'; 'David R Oran'; rrg@psg.com
>> 主题: Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean
>> 
>> On 2008-04-01 23:13, Xu Xiaohu wrote:
>> >> Earlier, Dave Oran wrote:
>> >> % So I can imagine it being reasonable to handle host changes on 
>> >> about % half of these. At best. And certainly not with a flag day 
>> >> just inside % my little orandom.net domain.
>> >>
>> >> From your summary, it sounds like any router changes are 
>also very 
>> >> far from being a given.
>> >
>> > It seems that using multiple independent IPv4 address spaces in an 
>> > id/locator split solution to address the IPv4 address depletion 
>> > issue is reasonable.
>> 
>> That's exactly what NAT does. We're trying to do better, I believe.
>
>Hi Brian,
>
>My thought is:
>The private addresses behind the NAT box are not suitable to 
>be used as identifier. However, these independent IPv4 address 
>spaces can be used as locator spaces as long as each private 
>address space can be distinguished by some means, such as 
>globally unique locator space ID or the public IPv4 + locally 
>unique locator space ID. Then we can introduce a pure 
>identifier namespace, such as IPv6 or CGA address. In this 
>way, most of the routers, especially those in the site 
>network, do not need to be upgrade to IPv6, and the routing 
>scalability issue and address depletion issue are solved 
>simultaneously. Of course, this requires some small change in hosts.

Perhaps you would be interested in the idea of multiple nested
private IPv4 address spaces with IPv6 EIDs, where you would have:

  v6 EID -> v4 RLOC P1 -> v4RLOC P2 -> .. v4RLOC PN -> v4RLOC Global

In other words, map and encaps through N private spaces (P1 thru PN)
before a final (or after an intial) map and encaps through the global
IPv4 address space. The routers connecting the N nested private address
spaces are identified by an IPv6 prefix, e.g., with the nesting manifested
through IPv6 prefix delegation. This idea was put forth in the IPvLX proposal.

>Is this approach more acceptable for site network owners 
>compared with the
>v6 EID over v4 RLOC LISP approach? It's easy for carrier to 
>upgrade their routers to IPv6, but it will be much hard for 
>the site network to do this.
>
>What's the better NAT solution in your mind?

IPv6 routers that also serve as firewalls in front of a private
IPv4 address space?

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

>
>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
>

--
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