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

Re: [RRG] Moving forward...

On 6/19/08 9:43 AM, Lixia Zhang allegedly wrote:

- IPv4/v6 share the same architecture; the only major fundamental
  difference is their address space size.
- my notion of the RRG task is to develop an architectural
  solution to routing scalability.
- We should step up a level from looking specific versions of
  IP at this stage of solution development.  Our solution has to be
  an architectural change, and should work for either version.

Lixia


Agree.

On 6/19/08 1:03 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:

If we do find something that is both clean AND can be back-ported to v4, I
would definitely support that.


Agree.

"Clean" as in: in accord with the design goals draft.
But Lixia is right. At this point it shouldn't matter whether something can be put in a hop-by-hop header or not. We don't need to be down at that level. So v4 vs v6 shouldn't be an issue yet. 





--
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