...
My concern is that adoption of shim6 will be an impediment to development of a more general locator/identifier separation solution both because the mapping functions might clash and because many will object to changing existing implementations a *second* time for what might be perceived to be only a marginal gain for users (and possibly even a loss for providers).
I believe that a true id/loc split is a much more fundamental change than IPv4 to IPv6 and on a completely different scale of cost and decade. ...
Indeed. NAT is simply a response to the economic models of address allocation. Any technical "solutions" that perpetuate those models will also perpetuate the demand for NAT.
The smallest allocation granularity for IPv6 is supposed to be a prefix, not an address, for that reason. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
