Tony, I guess I will have just one more word on this. If the LISP sites are organized as dual-stack nodes that have IPv6 addresses that appear as EIDs for LISP, but use IPv4 private addresses for the site-internal organization, then there is dual-stack and no need for NAT-PT.
This is exactly the use case scenario for ISATAP. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Templin, Fred L > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:44 AM > To: Tony Li > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4 > > Tony, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tony Li [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:33 AM > > To: Templin, Fred L > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4 > > > > > > Fred, > > > > Where did you hide the NAT-PT box? And, once you have the NAT-PT > > box, why do you need LISP involved? > > I'm not sure it needs to be NAT-PT due to dual stack and/or > IPv4-in-IPv6 tunneling, but if NAT-PT were used then I don't > know why it wouldn't be co-located on the ITR. > > There was an entire discussion session in v6ops yesterday > on tunneling vs translation that involved much more-informed > individuals than myself, and AFAICT there were no conclusions. > So, it would be wrong for me to hazard a guess as to which way > is better at this point. > > Thanks - Fred > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Tony > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > > > > Tony, > > > > > >> Could such a host access IPv4 sites? > > > > > > Sure; IMHO, leave the IPv4 Internet in-place and (as someone > > > once articulated to me) "build a second story" on top of the > > > existing foundation. > > > > > > Fred > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Tony Li [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:57 PM > > >> To: Templin, Fred L > > >> Cc: [email protected] > > >> Subject: Re: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4 > > >> > > >> > > >> On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > >> > > >>> I am wondering why there hasn't been more discussion about > > >>> using LISP as the vehicle to get us to IPv6, e.g. by having > > >>> EIDs as IPv6 addresses and RLOCs as IPv4 addresses from the > > >>> onset. A hallway discussion brought up the subject of > > >>> incremental deployment, but why can't we just use 6to4 > > >>> as the bootstrapping vehicle to get us to LISP/IPv6? > > >>> > > >>> By this, I mean that nodes having 2002::/16 EIDs are handled > > >>> using 6to4 and have the same deployment profile as for 6to4 > > >>> today. Then, we require that nodes having non-6to4 EIDs be > > >>> deployed behind ETRs. If we then also say that 6to4 relay > > >>> routers must configure themselves as ITRs and do the necessary > > >>> map-and-encaps, we have an incremental deployment profile. > > >>> > > >>> Any thoughts on this? > > >> > > >> > > >> Fred, > > >> > > >> Could such a host access IPv4 sites? > > >> > > >> Tony > > >> > > > > -- > 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
