I voted in support of the ILNP I-Ds being published as RFC outputs of the RRG.
However, as I have noted before, I think that the claims that ILNP can work with existing IPv6 applications are misleading: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-09.txt - ILNP problems http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07185.html 2010-08-01 I assumed it could be done, but when I worked through the details, I couldn't see a way of doing it. Tony Li tried to figure out how to do it, without success. Ran has not tried to show how it could be done. There are many other objections to ILNP, but this one I think is particularly serious, since it involves a claim, which if taken as true, would provide ILNP with a significant advantage over other Core Edge Elimination proposals which are in the RRG Report. The three other CEE proposals - GLI-Split, Name Based Sockets and RANGI - all require applications to be rewritten. ILNP's claims about operating with existing applications, or at least IPv6 applications (there is little discussion of ILNPv4 in the report or the I-Ds) includes: From the Report: ILNP can be implemented such that existing applications (e.g. applications using the BSD Sockets API) do NOT need any changes or modifications to use ILNP. From the intro I-D: So it is believed that existing IP address referrals can continue to work properly in most cases. Also, none of the other CEE architectures involve claim of working on IPv4. They all assume IPv6 as a basis. ILNP has an IPv4 version - the practical problems of which are not fully acknowledged in the RRG Report or I-Ds. ILNPv4 requires all packets be longer, with an IPv4 Header Option, which will not be handled efficiently by many, most or all routers, including DFZ routers. Further objections to CEE architectures in general can be found in: "Overloading" of Loc & ID functions is good for hosts and should be maintained (2010-06-22) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07017.html - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
