Hi Tony, When revising your text, can you add something to indicate that ILNP is not suitable for widespread adoption in IPv4?
Even if it was not constrained by the 32 bit address bits in terms of the number of Locators and Identifiers it could provide, each multihomed end-user network would chew at least 3 times its current amount of global unicast space, as I wrote: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06473.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06489.html Since the RRG's charter contains nothing which diminishes the importance of solving the IPv4 scaling problem, in the absence of a note about ILNP's unsuitability for IPv4, readers would get the impression from your text that you think ILNP could contribute to the solution of the IPv4 scaling problem. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
