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
