> From: Robin Whittle <[email protected]>
> Since the RRG's charter contains nothing which diminishes the
> importance of solving the IPv4 scaling problem, in the absence of a
> note about ILNP's unsuitability for IPv4, readers would get the
> impression from your text that you think ILNP could contribute to the
> solution of the IPv4 scaling problem.
I don't know if Robin's claim about ILNPv4 is correct or not, in part because
I was able to find very little about ILNPv4; for example, the "ILNP Concept
of Operations" contains no details of how ILNPv4 works. But I do think IPv4
support should be covered to some degree, beyond "ILNPv4 is fully backwards
compatible with IPv4", which is all that's said at the moment.
Which leads me to another thought: it would be good to see those proposals
which wound up being recommendations given a bit more space to explain how
they work, for those many readers who will not have time to read through all
the underlying documentation, and just want a quick high-level view.
For instance, the current ILNP Summary doesn't even take time to say something
like 'ILNP splits a 128-bit IPv6 address into 64-bit locator and identifier
fields' (perhaps because it spent most of its space budget listing benefits).
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
