Heiner -
How would map-and-encap schemes be incrementally deployable if they
didn't use IP addresses for both address realms? Even translation-based
schemes need IP addresses as locators for backwards compatibility.
- Christian
On Jul 11, 2009, [email protected] wrote:
Sorry Christian that I have a different opinion. At first, a locator,
i.e. a location information, must be routable (aggregatable is
something
completely different) and, of course, it must be written somewhere,
e.g.
into the field for destination IP address, and/or destination
MAC-address and eventually, for some transitional time, into a new
additional header. Even LISP authors emphasized that the locator
addresses inside the LISP header could potentially make up a new
namespace. However it is the LISP supporters' decision to use
non-routable IP addresses instead, or better said, the same
IP-address-based routing technique which produced and produces the
scalability problem.
Heiner
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
