Hi Brian,
When 8+8 first appeared, I was delighted and referred to it as "architected NAT." I think that is what we need, either in the form of 8+8/GSE, map-and-encap, MHAP, or something like those. To me that is by far the most hopeful class of solutions.
I agree. There are some potential problems with these types of solutions, but they seem to present the most promising path. Also, the problems may be less severe than our current choices (route table implosion and/or NAT).
I think we have fallen into a semantic nightmare here... When I say that we need some type of provider-independent addresses, it was not my intention to rule out these types of solutions. In fact, I think this may be where the answer lies. Is this type of solution being actively pursued somewhere in the IETF? Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
