In einer eMail vom 08.03.2010 06:08:19 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
> From: Tony Li <[email protected]> > IPv4 is done. Over. Cooked. Fully toast. It will either enter a black > market where we deaggregate and no proposal will help, or we shift to > v6 and v4 is irrelevant. In either case, we're not in time to do > anything significant for v4. Probably needless to say, I do not agree with this. There are _definitely_ more options than DeathI and DeathII. Noel I disagree as well. IPv6 has got all the chances to make a successful carreer for about a decade - and failed. Stop riding a dead horse. Rather than IPv6, IEEE might win the race. IPv6 can well live in its niche because IPv4 is shouldering the load. Talking about the future: All the opinions I hear assume that the way IP is embedded stays forever unchanged. It depends on a telephone network underneath although VOIP deployment progresses. I don't see ambitious objectives for a future routing technology (by others :-), nor how the to be developed networking layer should be embedded. For very minor goals MPLS was created and allowed to come up with a shim (the MPLS stack). Loc/id-separation ? Well, some kind of separation is needed, but it should be done such that IPv4 can exist forever. If it cannot be done by some prepended header (LISP-header, TARA-header,...) then at some genuine sub-layer. Maybe MPLS is greatful to get a new job! Maybe IEEE is greatful to get a new job either. But forget about solutions which discontinue IPv4. MPLS means "multi-protocol..." Where I agree with Tony: The CEE versus CES feud is not of any help. Instead we should conceive the nodes and the hosts as part of the networking layer, each part being ordered and enabled to do its appropriate tasks. Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
