Xu Xiaohu wrote: > However, for incremental deployment purpose, I wonder whether the totally > non-routable identifier is a practical choice.
This is the crux of the same debate that we've been having for three years. Are we trying to be incrementally 'easy'? Or are we trying to do it 'right'? If we choose the path that's easy, then we end up in an architecture that is not nearly as clean as we would like. If we choose the path that's clean, then we have a deployment issue. Note that if we can get to IPv6 at all (debatable), then we have an existence proof that we CAN do wholesale deployment. Thus, it would seem like there are two logical positions: - Band-aids for IPv4. - Clean fixes for IPv6. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
