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
