[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] 2 billion IP cellphones in 2103 & mass adoption of IPv6 by currentIPv4 users
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:35 AM
>To: Templin, Fred L
>Cc: Robin Whittle; Routing Research Group; Steven Blake
>Subject: Re: [RRG] 2 billion IP cellphones in 2103 & mass
>adoption of IPv6 by currentIPv4 users
>
>[2 billion cell phones in the next 95 years seems on the low side.]
>
>On 16 sep 2008, at 17:12, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
>> Who says there needs to be growth in the number of IPv6
>> BGP routes? If we map/encaps the entire IPv6 space as an
>> overlay over the existing IPv4 Internet, we keep IPv6
>> prefixes out of the BGP routing tables and we get to
>> scale through mapping w/o affecting routing scaling.
>
>There still needs to be a box that takes an IPv6 packet and decides
>where that packet should go based on its destination address and
>therefore this box needs to run a protocol to learn which address
>prefixes go where.
Call that box a LISP ITR, e.g., and the decision of where
the packet goes is based on resolving an IPv6 EID to an
IPv4 RLOC. That is a mapping function; not routing function.
Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>The only thing that such an overlay buys us over multiprotocol BGP is
>that the routing in the overlay network can be less dynamic
>because it
>doesn't have to know about the status of the network in the
>middle. If
>the destination is single homed the mapping can even be static but if
>the destination is multihomed then the mapping must still react to a
>smaller set of routing changes.
>
>(One might observe that if BGP had been designed better those same
>advantages could have been realized without an overlay or new
>protocols.)
>
--
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