[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Moving forward...
There are at least two dimensions in which the differences between
v4 and v6 may make a difference to what sorts of solutions are
effective / deployable / definable / ...
1) The fact that the IPv6 header has lots of bits means that there
are solutions that do not involve encapsulation or information loss
which can be considered with v6 that do not apply to v4.
2) The fact that v6 is still, in practice, in very early stages
means that there is more willingness to change the system to make it
worth having. And that folks are more willing to look at changes.
This does not mean that I want to ignore IPv4. But it does mean
that I think the differences may have an impact on the architectural
approach we recommend. And I would hate to see us declare that we
will not consider any approach which can not leverage those
differences.
Joel, since we are staying at the conceptual level, I think from an
architecture point of view we can come up with one architecture for
both address families. But I agree with you, at the engineering level
there are different ways to achieve the architecture, where mechanisms
can be optimized for the specific address-family.
Dino
--
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