Hi Scott,
Scott Brim escribió:
A few thoughts on this quick draft:
Pure higher-layer approaches aren't acceptable:
- We knew that already, for operational reasons other than
renumbering, for example the shim6 argument.
what is the shim6 argument?
- But that doesn't mean those technologies aren't essential, because
even if an endpoint only has a single locator within a domain,
both endpoints and networks will be multihomed and/or mobile, so
they will at least appear to have multiple locators in global
routing. Shim6, HIP, SCTP, Multipath ... all are potentially very
useful. It's probably outside of the scope of RRG since they do
nothing to solve routing scaling,
what do you mean they do nothing to solve the routing scalability?
If every site and host uses only PA addresses, the routing system would
scale in the order of ISPs, reducing the contribution by the multihomed
sites.
Regards, marcelo
but it is an extremely important
area for the future of the Internet.
The question is translation versus encapsulation.
- That's being hotly discussed outside of RRG, for example AI6. I'm
wondering: will RRG's role only be as a forum where people can
compare the results of the discussions and experiments being done
elsewhere?
Thanks ... Scott
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
