>-----Original Message----- >From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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