On 17 Jun 2010, at 12:20 , Tony Li wrote: >> The only thing that's unclear to me is whether the ILNPv6 >> space should be a new address family or a defined subset >> of the IPv6 number space. Indeed, it's unclear to me what >> the ILNP authors think on this topic. It perhaps would be >> nice to see worked examples - the papers seem not to have them. > > In order for ILNP to be backward compatible and interoperable > with legacy IPv6 hosts, it must use the exact same namespace.
(Just to be clear) Tony is quite correct, both about the reasons and also about what ILNPv6 does. An ILNPv6 Locator does not use "a defined subset of the IPv6 number space", nor a separate number space, but instead an ILNPv6 Locator uses the entire IPv6 routing number space. Similarly, an ILNPv4 Locator uses the entire IPv4 routing number space. Backwards-compatibility is a major design & engineering objective (and also a provided property) of ILNP -- both for ILNPv4 & ILNPv6. (To the authors of the papers, this was obvious. We're sorry if that wasn't as obvious to others.) Ran _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
