Hi Iljitsch, You wrote, in part:
> But I guess the real question is: how do we get users to renumber? No > matter how easy we make it (short of it being completely transparent, > which isn't going to happen as long as we overload the functions of the > IP address), if user simply refuse to renumber we've gained nothing. LISP, APT, Ivip, TRRP and Six/One Router are all intended to provide stable, portable, multihomable address space for end-user networks so they don't need to renumber when they use another ISP. I think there is no prospect for making reliable, secure, renumbering enough sufficiently easy that we can convince end-user networks to adopt any scalable routing system which requires this. > This is one of the reasons why I think we should make an id/loc solution > such that the locators are stripped off by the ISP. If the users don't > get to see the locators, they can't hardcode them and renumbering (of > the locators at least) remains a possibility. For LISP, APT, Ivip and TRRP, the hosts never have any idea of the locator address - the address of the ETR. In Six/One Router, when a host in a non-upgraded network gets a packet from a host in an upgraded network the packet's source address has already been translated (by the translation router at the border of the source network) to a transit address. Transit addresses are locator addresses. So this fails your test. It is also possible for a host in an upgraded network to receive such a packet using the transit address, but I don't understand why this is necessary: bilateral mode when both networks are upgraded. I asked Christian about this here: http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg02149.html - Robin -- 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
