Hi Fred,
On 2010-04-16 05:00, Templin, Fred L wrote:
...
> But, how can we give the customers the perceived
> advantages of PI without locking them into a PA "matrix"?
> How can we make it so that the ISPs serve the customers
> instead of the other way around? The IRON-RANGER solution
> to this is simple; have the ISPs give the customers PA
> addresses, but then let them use the PA addresses as a
> springboard into PI. Then, the customer border routers
> get exposed to PA addresses, but the customer internal
> networks get to use PI and get to multihome whether or
> not multi-addressing is also used. So why not have a
> combined PA/PI scenario instead of strictly one vs the
> other? Wouldn't that tend to have some bearing on the
> RRG recommendation?
Well, to take a few other examples, SHIM6, LISP, NAT66 and ILNP
can all be construed to provide the same effect, to a close
approximation. (You can quibble, for example SHIM6's ULID is
in fact an arbitrary PA address, although it behaves like
PI for the host, but broadly, they're all isomorphic).
IMHO that's why it's hard to choose. All solutions are
equivalent at a sufficient level of abstraction, so the choice
depends on details, and we're never going to agree on the
details.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
