You are correct, it's not a requirement, but there is a large segment who
have religious objections to border locator translation (i.e., NAT).  Thus,
some form of renumbering really is a requirement in the long run.

Tony



But this is what I thought with the incremental deployment issue. You told me 
that ILNP is incrementally deployable.
And now you say that there would be a renumbering requirement in the long run, 
which actually means, a flag day for renumbering is required from where on a 
changed interpretation of the address'es octets would apply.


I remember a long discussion, resulting with the ban for any solution that 
required a flag day.


Heiner





-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 
Von: Tony Li <[email protected]>
An: Steven Blake <[email protected]>
Cc: IRTF Routing RG <[email protected]>
Verschickt: Di., 20. Apr. 2010, 20:44
Thema: Re: [rrg] Proposal for recommendation language



Hi Steven,

>>    We recommend further work on automating renumbering because even with
>>    ILNP, the ability of a domain to change its locators at minimal cost
>>    is fundamentally necessary.  No routing architecture will be able to
>>    scale without some form of abstraction, and domains that change their
>>    point of attachment must fundamentally be prepared to change their
>>    locators in line with this abstraction.
> 
> 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.


You are correct, it's not a requirement, but there is a large segment who
have religious objections to border locator translation (i.e., NAT).  Thus,
some form of renumbering really is a requirement in the long run.

Tony


_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

 
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

Reply via email to