Dino, > -----Original Message----- > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:47 PM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: Victor Grishchenko; Tony Li; Routing Research Group list > Subject: Re: [RRG] Re: [RAM] Different approaches for > different protocols > > > LISP is in some sense a step backwards since it assumes that > > sites won't be running multiple prefixes, so the only use > > of multiple addresses will be link local v. ULA v. PI. > > Sites *can* have multiple EID-prefixes in LISP, and they will occur > when small EID-prefix blocks are allocated because a site under- > estimated the number of systems it has to number.
Then, why not have LISP cut straight to the chase and go straight to IPv6 in the EID space (leave the RLOC space as IPv4)? To my understanding, management of multiple prefixes is better handled in IPv6, and IMHO we need to get to IPv6 in the not-too-distant future anyway... Thanks - Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
