Re: [RRG] Consensus? End-user networks need their own portable address space

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>

    > The key point for this group is simply this: the IP address *is* an
    > identifier, an index key, and many other things that we'll never fully
    > know.

Hence my fondness for 'jack up' deployment approaches, which introduce a new
locator namespace below the existing IPvN addresses (which become endpoint
identifiers).

I've gone back and forth on this; an old routing architecture I did used this
as an interoperable deployment technique; then I played around with adding
endpoint identifiers above the existing internet layer; but I think now I'm
back to doing it below (because of the installed base issue).

Just out of curiousity, do you see these same arguments as applying to IPv6
too, even though deployment thereof is minimal? If so, is that because IPv6
is so similar to IPv4 that people will just use the same mindset on both?

	Noel

--
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