> Please note that my goal was 'independence', not separation. I have no > problem with some nodes having points in both namespaces. That's not a big > deal. The interesting property to me is that one should be able to function > within one namespace without resulting in changes to the other namespace. > > For example, one could embed their v4 identifier into their v6 locator. > This would create a coupling between the locators and identifiers that I > would expect would cause problems.
I don't know the real meaning of adopting v6 address as locator space, in fact, we can adopt global IPv4+local IPv4 (see IPNL) or LD ID+IPv4 (see HRA) scheme to extend IPv4 address space, which are relatively lower cost for deployment. However, I do believe we need a new namespace for identifier which can provide enough space in a long run, for example, IPv6( or CGA like address format), E.164, HIT (flat label in HIP). These names (including IPv6 address) are ONLY used as identifiers. Best wishes, Xiaohu XU -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
