Ran, To what extent is ILNP different/better than limiting prefix building to the locator size ?
Heiner -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: Ran Atkinson <[email protected]> An: IRTF Routing RG <[email protected]> Verschickt: Di., 20. Apr. 2010, 14:22 Thema: Re: [rrg] Proposal for recommendation language Earlier, Steve Blake wrote: % I heartily agree that further work on automatic renumbering is needed. % However, ILNP could be deployed with ULAs and border locator translation % in the edge network, so it would not be strictly accurate to suggest % that automatic renumbering technology is a deployment dependency. Steve is correct above. ILNP does not require new/improved automatic renumbering technology to deploy in a scalable manner. This is one of the most clearly documented aspects of ILNP, because it was covered in some detail in last October's MILCOM paper: R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti, Site-Controlled Secure Multi-homing and Traffic Engineering for IP, 28th IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), Boston, MA, USA, October 2009. (PDF is available for download from the ILNP project web site.) (Of course, continuing to work on automatic renumbering technology is desirable regardless of which path(s) the IETF ends up travelling.) Yours, Ran _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
