Heiner, the IETF has said it doesn't want to come up with any more clever ways to help organizations continue to squeeze more life out of IPv4 addresses. It will help with transition away from IPv4. Thus IPv4 address depletion isn't a favored topic, and neither is making significant changes to Internet routing and/or addressing architecture in response. I suspect that ideas for routing multiple namespaces efficiently could be worth considering, but I would generalize it beyond just IPv4 and IPv6. What else could you route?
Scott On Nov 18, 2013 4:54 PM, <heinerhum...@aol.com> wrote: > Certainly - though the times are gone when routing and addressing where > identical, i.e. when my means of the next dialled digit the next-hop trunk > was selected electro-mechanically. > Just compare TARA-now ( > http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/topology-aggregating-routing-architecture-tara/77501 > ) > and the long expired draft-hummel-tara-00: > I once had the same idea like Fuller to disseminate a prefix of length > zero, so that a TARA-router closest to the ingress could attract traffic, > then prepend a TARA-header as to do TARA-forwarding to some TARA-ETR. But > it was necessary to sacrifice this nice idea. Instead it is more important > to involve the user side and > have FQDN mapped to {IPv4; TARA-locator} by one single action. The gain: > tons and tons of available IPv4-addresses. > > All has to be taken into consideration. Whereas the LISP-supporters say > "hey, addressing is not our problem; we just deal with the scalability > issue". > Well, if you want to help IPv4, both issues must be of concern, and the > address depletion is even the more serious issue, isn't it? > > Heiner > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- > Von: Tony Li <t...@pi-coral.com> > An: heinerhummel <heinerhum...@aol.com> > Cc: lars <l...@netapp.com>; rrg <rrg@irtf.org> > Verschickt: So, 17 Nov 2013 7:12 pm > Betreff: Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
