Hi Heiner,
I¹m not sure that I see the point in going through these arguments yet again, but in the interests of completeness, I¹ll recapitulate. > ILNP is an IPv6-only solution. IPv6 may do what so ever - for more than a > decade. No one really cares. > You¹re speaking for yourself. You don¹t care. There are now lots of people who do care, in part due to the IPv4 address space runout. > > However, it would be against RFC4984 to ignore the IPv4's scalability problem > incl. the associated Moore's-law-resistance. > Just supporting ILNP means ignoring the task given by RFC4984. Imho: ILNP is > free to go ahead ( just as LISP was free to go ahead). > I¹m not sure what you¹re referring to, but the fact of the matter is that we currently have exactly the same routing architecture for v6 and v4 and that the problem that we have been chartered to solve is to address that routing architecture. As requested by 4984. > > What is the ILNP locator all about? Is it routable? Or is it only mappable > just like the MAC address or the current IPv4/v6 address? > Is it at least PI ? What is it really and precisely? > It is a topologically sensitive namespace for subnets¹, topologically allocated and not associated with a host. > > How about the basic requirement "incremental deployability" ? Is it a > non-issue for ILNP because the few IPv4-addressers aren't worth to be > considered? > Six years have been wasted so far and the actual decision of the chairs is > blantly ignoring the task to come up with an architecture that fits a future > internet. ILNP is incrementally deployable. Any host can individually deploy it and it will continue to interoperate with legacy hosts. Tony
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
