On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 11:44 -0700, Tony Li wrote: > 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.
A large segment has religious objections to site renumbering. Both approaches have pros and cons, and those change with a locator/id split architecture like ILNP. Better to cater to everyone's religious preferences where possible, IMHO (as long as there are no innocent third-party victims!). Besides, the IETF already has a multi-homing solution that depends on multi-addressing in the edge network. Regards, // Steve _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
