[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Moving forward...
On Jun 19, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
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.
Warning - blatantly personal reaction:
This exchange highlights for me why I simply can't process this
distinction between the conceptual level and the engineering level.
It's a near continuum in my thought processes...
Back to your regularly-scheduled program.
DaveO.
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
--
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