Excerpts from Stephen Sprunk at 03:08:24 -0600 on Sun 2 Dec 2007: > Thus spake "Scott Brim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Excerpts from Stephen Sprunk on Fri, Nov 30, 2007 01:00:57PM > > -0600: > >> I suppose that's a "split"; I thought Russ was worried that there > >> would be two (potentially overlapping) address spaces, one for > >> providers and one for customers, as opposed to a single address > >> space which was divided into RLOCs and EIDs. For instance, > >> there's been mention of using IPv6 for EIDs and IPv4 for RLOCs, > >> which has some interesting properties. > > > > I am concerned about totally decoupling the addressing domains, > > and allowing reuse of addresses, for two reasons. First, > > operations: I think it would be confusing to operators to always > > have to provide context when talking about "240.1.2.3". Second, > > it might be useful to allow end nodes to send packets directly to > > globally routed addresses in the DFZ domain. On both of these, we > > don't know yet if it's going to be a problem, so let's put off > > reusing addresses for a while. > > I don't understand how a solution could be incrementally deployable > unless both the EID space and the RLOC space were distinct parts of > our existing address space. They can't overlap as long as there's a > single legacy site left, which means forever in practice.
I think that sounds right. -- 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
