In einer eMail vom 01.12.2009 01:54:40 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
wrote about this in April and updated the text after some helpful and generally positive feedback: http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/ Does anyone agree with some or all of this? Robin, I agree with all your "must be's" (btw you also enlists some non-requirement statements). But why do you want to postpone considering MIP ? Your (and other's) future routing architecture depends heavily on the continued existence of non-IP / telephone network architecture. You mention millions (billions ?) of mobile handsets and are afraid of their prefixes. All I hear is mapping, mapping, mapping: enum-mapping, RLOC-mapping... Maybe I should join the choir and speak of location-mapping, i.e. of a location-namespace which is a seperate and new namespace. Then all other addresses, PI and PA, IPv4 and IPv6, E.164 and HITs, etc. could be serviced equally well. Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
