Noel, > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 3:13 PM > To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [rrg] 6to4++ > > > From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> > > > a stateless mapping is possible when the IPv6 EID address embeds the > > IPv4 RLOC address. > > What happens when the EID needs to change its RLOC (for provider > independence),
Changing the RLOC obviously changes the EID prefix. Those who are lucky enough to have provider-independent RLOCs will not have a problem with this. Those that don't would incur a site-wide renumbering event if they changed providers. But, the goal here is to support automatic mapping between core DFZ routers with public IPv4 addresses that would presumably be stable; we would not want this scheme to penetrate deeply beyond the core DFZ routers, and would instead use some stateful map/encaps scheme within end sites. > or use multiple RLOCs (for multihoming)? The proposal is that multiple site border routers would configure the same IPv4 RLOC in anycast fashion to give multihoming. Another name that someone suggested for this scheme was "multihomed 6to4" > The whole point of 'separation of location and identity' is that it > requires a binding. TANSTAAFL. The major point to be made is that there are different considerations within different domains of application. Instead of saying "TANSTAAFL", I would rather say "there is no one size fits all". So, stateless mapping using 6to4++ within the core where addresses are more stable, and stateful mapping nearer the edges where addresses are more volatile is what is being proposed here. Fred [email protected] > > Noel _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
