On Nov 17, 2013, at 8:35 AM, heinerhum...@aol.com wrote:
> When RRG was launched the driving force was the so-called scalability problem.
> Currently the biggest issue is the expiration of available IPv4 addresses.
> That however would be a non-issue if the FQDN were mapped to {IPv4 addr of
> destination user; locator of ETR} in a single strike based on DNS while
> taking care that IPv4 addresses of the same locator were mutually unique.
> LISP-DDT neither does so now, nor would be able to do so ever. Hence IPv4's
> lifetime is up to NAT as long as solutions like LISPv2.0 or my TARA are
> discarded/ignored. There are much more knowledgable folks around who know the
> disadvantages of the NAT sinfall better than myself. I can only add one
> disadvantage: With a network layer based on TCP (NAT) you can never enable
> Multicast with a roaming sender.
>
> I think this IPv4-depletion issue is the most urgent problem at all.
Is that a routing problem?
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
