re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> >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.

Hi Fred,

The concept of the nested address spaces is interesting, but I'm doubt the
driver for this network structure. BTW, there may be many private address
realm behind a NAT box, should there be a realm ID to distinguish them?

> >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?

IPv6 router you mentioned should be locator domain (space) border routers
(LDBR), these routers can support prefix-based routing and LD ID/LD prefix
based routing, and the internal routers within locator domain just need to
support IPv4 prefix-based routing. Of course, the firewall function can be
built into the LDBR if you like.

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