[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] Consensus? 4 points so we can make progress



On 5/28/08 6:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
3 - The solution must provide portable address space for
    end-user networks without impacting the scaling of the
    current BGP routing system.  (The map-encap schemes do this.)

I don't agree. The desire for "portable" prefixes is an artefact of
IPv4 experience. Let me reformulate.

     The solution must allow the option of provider-independent
     address space and the option of multiple provider-dependent
     address spaces for end-user networks...

It doesn't even need to do that. It should allow multihoming and easy migration from one point in the topology to another. How it does that is an open question.

--
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