> My first impression on reading over your HRA proposal is that it > involves changed host behaviour. Yes.
> 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. HRA should be looked as a long-term solution, like HIP or Node ID architecture. > 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. It's something about the tradeoff between investment and benefit. The final choice depends on the requirements of the future Internet service, e.g. security, huge amount of address, end-to-end transparency principle for easy deployment of new service. Best wishes, Xiaohu XU -- 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
