On 2008-02-19 11:24, Jari Arkko wrote: > Ran, > >> The functional >> requirement would be that the enhanced IPv6 remain backwards >> compatible with existing IPv6 -- for the near term. > > Right -- things like this should indeed be possible. Just to confirm > from my IETF perspective: if needed, we can add new features or > functions to IPv6 if the backwards compatibility is retained. Or even to > IPv4. We do it all the time... > > (But I am not quite sure what your exact proposal is, maybe there will > be a draft on this later? And note that, quite obviously, there has to > be incentives for people to add those things in their networks and hosts > or else none of this will get deployed.)
I can't help pointing out that shim6 *is* evolutionary in exactly the sense Ran suggests - bog standard RFC2460 hosts will just not be able to play, and shim6 hosts will understand this and stop trying to use the shim. I see no reason personally why we shouldn't use a similar approach for enhanced hosts to interact with a loc/id system. To provide the incentive, there has to be enhanced connectivity as a reward. Brian -- 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
