RE: [RRG] Moving forward... IPv4 now, IPv6 less urgent and perhapsmore ambitious

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

Hi Robin,

Sorry for the delay, but I had to dig pretty deep to find this:

>Fred Templin disagreed with your text, wanting IPv4 and IPv6
>solutions.

I don't disagree with what Tony said, however, there is quite
a bit left to consider in what he _didn't_ say. Tony didn't
say, for example, that we can expect the existing global IPv4
deployment to be decommissioned in the coming N years (for any
value of N). He also did not say that IPv4 will have no roll
to play in the IPv6 routing scaling solution.

In my perfect world, we would roll out the big iron to
flat-route the global IPv4 address space, while at the same
time we map-and-encaps the dickens out of IPv6. The existing
IPv4 services would then remain highly available while new
services are rolled out using IPv6 and w/o thrashing the
routing system. IPv6/IPv4 map-and-encaps would support
this, but IPv6/SEAL/IPv4 map-and-encaps would be much
better (and also much better than IPv6/IPv6).

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 
  

--
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