Brian -
Well yes, but many of the solutions deliver the original packet, and it seems that in the particular case Christian was describing, Six/One Router would deliver a translated packet.
Right. The particular case you are referring to is the case where upgraded and legacy edge networks communicate. The backwards compatibility method that the Six/One Router paper proposes for this case is unilateral address rewriting, and this has the described affect of delivering a translated packet. Of course, Six/One Router delivers the original packet unchanged in case two upgraded edge networks communicate with each other.
That doesn't happen with a map/encap solution.
It is actually a question of which backwards compatibility method you use rather than a question of whether or not you use map-and-encap (tunneling) for address indirection. And this brings me to a more general point: We should differentiate between the address indirection method and the backwards compatibility method, because the two are orthogonal to each other. And we should evaluate the best solution for either of these independently of each other. We have three main methods for backwards compatibility on the RRG table, and all were proposed for a particular address indirection method: Proxying was proposed for LISP and Ivip, unilateral address rewriting was proposed for Six/One Router, and per-provider deployment was proposed for APT. However, we should understand that neither of these backwards compatibility methods is bound to a particular address indirection method. Any combination is feasible. - Christian -- 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
