Hi Heiner, > >> 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. >> > 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. > The two issues are not coupled and I don¹t understand how or why you are trying to couple them.
Again, there is no flag day. You can deploy ILNP initially and have it interoperate with legacy v6 hosts. If you need to change providers with ILNP and you are a NAT-lover, you can do that. If you are a NAT-hater, then you can do traditional manual renumbering or we will have renumbering tools so you don¹t have to. Tony
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
