Comments below: >-----Original Message----- >From: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:37 AM >To: 'Brian E Carpenter' >Cc: 'Randall Atkinson'; 'David R Oran'; [email protected] >Subject: re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean > > > >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 发送时间: 2008年4月9日 6:56 >> 收件人: Xu Xiaohu >> 抄送: 'Randall Atkinson'; 'David R Oran'; [email protected] >> 主题: Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean >> >> On 2008-04-01 23:13, Xu Xiaohu wrote: >> >> Earlier, Dave Oran wrote: >> >> % So I can imagine it being reasonable to handle host changes on >> >> about % half of these. At best. And certainly not with a flag day >> >> just inside % my little orandom.net domain. >> >> >> >> From your summary, it sounds like any router changes are >also very >> >> far from being a given. >> > >> > It seems that using multiple independent IPv4 address spaces in an >> > id/locator split solution to address the IPv4 address depletion >> > issue is reasonable. >> >> That's exactly what NAT does. We're trying to do better, I believe. > >Hi Brian, > >My thought is: >The private addresses behind the NAT box are not suitable to >be used as identifier. However, these independent IPv4 address >spaces can be used as locator spaces as long as each private >address space can be distinguished by some means, such as >globally unique locator space ID or the public IPv4 + locally >unique locator space ID. Then we can introduce a pure >identifier namespace, such as IPv6 or CGA address. In this >way, most of the routers, especially those in the site >network, do not need to be upgrade to IPv6, and the routing >scalability issue and address depletion issue are solved >simultaneously. Of course, this requires some small change in hosts.
Perhaps you would be interested in the idea of multiple nested private IPv4 address spaces with IPv6 EIDs, where you would have: v6 EID -> v4 RLOC P1 -> v4RLOC P2 -> .. v4RLOC PN -> v4RLOC Global In other words, map and encaps through N private spaces (P1 thru PN) before a final (or after an intial) map and encaps through the global IPv4 address space. The routers connecting the N nested private address spaces are identified by an IPv6 prefix, e.g., with the nesting manifested through IPv6 prefix delegation. This idea was put forth in the IPvLX proposal. >Is this approach more acceptable for site network owners >compared with the >v6 EID over v4 RLOC LISP approach? It's easy for carrier to >upgrade their routers to IPv6, but it will be much hard for >the site network to do this. > >What's the better NAT solution in your mind? IPv6 routers that also serve as firewalls in front of a private IPv4 address space? Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Best wishes, >Xiaohu XU > > > >-- >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
