But there is quite a lot of v6 support in hosts, perhaps more so than in networks?
One of the tricks with migration is that there is a benefit to the person who migrates. A crytpo ID gives potentially some security related benefits (whether they are wanted or not is another question) therefore there may be a motivation to add that to a host. On the other hand, the tunnel proposals seem to require end sites (or providers on their behalf) to do a lot of work so that the core routing system can scale better? Louise > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Robin Whittle > Sent: 16 November 2007 12:42 > To: Routing Research Group > Cc: Xu Xiaohu > Subject: Re: [RRG] A new draft about Hierarchical Routing Architecture > > Hi Xu, > > My first impression on reading over your HRA proposal is that > it involves changed host behaviour. > > If this is the case, then I don't think HRA can be considered > alongside LISP, eFIT-APT, Ivip or TRRP - all of which are > intended to work for current and future hosts without any new > host host requirements. > > I think HRA or any other system which requires host changes > is probably about as hard to introduce as IPv6: There seems > to be no strong enough immediate benefit for most early > adopters to create anything like widespread or ubiquitous > adoption - and in the meantime (~= forever) all ordinary > Internet users still need full > IPv4 connectivity. > > - Robin > > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg > -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
