Renumbering is impractical.This I can imagine and most of the RRG-mailinglist members do know it best (i.e much better than me). Furthermore: It doesn't help wrt the IPv4 address depletion issue. Whereas ID plus LOCATION would. Admitted, this can be attributed to LISP, too. But LISP doesn't exploit its own potential when it introduces a new name space but re-uses hereby the old one again (which is chaotic from the routing point of view). Heiner In einer eMail vom 23.10.2008 22:43:52 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Ran and I drafted this in reaction to the earlier discussion here about the impracticality of renumbering. We'd like comments and, above all, contributions. For now, this list is suggested for any discussion, but I will also mention the draft on the intarea list. Brian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Renumbering still needs work Author(s) : B. Carpenter, R. Atkinson Filename : draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2008-10-23 This document reviews the existing mechanisms for site renumbering for both IPv4 and IPv6, and identifies operational issues with those mechanisms. It also summarises current technical proposals for additional mechanisms. Finally there is a gap analysis. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
