Ran, are you assuming an architectural change will require host changes? If not, I don't see why this matters. The "jack-up" approach relieves the need for big changes to IP.
Excerpts from Randall Atkinson at 02:14:47 -0700 on Wed 26 Mar 2008: > It is highly unlikely that this RG will be able to cause any > architectural change to the deployed IPv4 Internet. There are > too many of everything (routers, hosts, embedded systems of > various sorts), and too much entropy in the IPv4 routing allocations > (probably more PI than PA, though I haven't counted recently) > to really make a substantial architectural change. Sundry hacks > might or might not be deployable, but the kinds of architectural > change indicated in the RG charter are unlikly to happen for the > IPv4 Internet (and are certainly very hard in absolute terms). > > By contrast, the IPv6 Internet still has relatively limited deployment > and relatively little routing allocation entropy. The overwhelming > majority of IPv6 hosts and routers are still young enough that > upgrading either or both is not impractical. Further, it is still possible, > just, that if the RG were to focus and execute on its charter, > and the IETF then ran with the input in a focused way, that some > meaningful architectural change to the IPv6 world could happen > BEFORE most of the Internet starts using IPv6 in a production way > (mindful, for example, of the Comcast presentations about the need > for IPv4::IPv6 NAT so that IPv6 only users can access IPv4 only content). > I'm not sure, perhaps some consider the SHIM6 work to be sufficient > in this regard, but clearly many do not consider the SHIM6 work > to be a solution to these issues. Presumably the powers that > wrote the current RG charter do not perceive SHIM6 as a solution > to the concerns listed in the charter. -- 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
