I think that this is at least misleading.
From a pure routing architecture perspective, the statement that IPv6
started with (thou shalt always use provider address) is sufficient.
However, once we acknowledge that issues like renumbering and the
realities of building networks are relevant, we have to look beyond just
our playpen and pay attention to adjacent activities and our affects on
them. Similarly, when evaluating map-and-encaps ideas, we should be
aware of the interaction of those ideas and other activities like
multi-path TCP, even though multi-TCP is clearly not "routing".
If we claim to have solved something with too small a focus, we won't
have anything usable.
Yours,
Joel
Lixia Zhang wrote:
...
But I would like to step up a level and repeat what I said earlier:
1/ I do not think it is in our charter to define how many identifiers we
ought to have, or what they ought to be.
2/ Our job is to figureout scalable routing architecture.
3/ We need to have a good understanding about the interplay between
addresses and identifiers, no less and also no more.
...
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
