>-----Original Message----- >From: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:27 AM >To: Templin, Fred L; 'Dino Farinacci'; 'Noel Chiappa' >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean > >> I don't think this is true at all; at least it better not >> be. AFAICT, IPv6 as EID and IPv4 as RLOC is our best path >> toward an IPv6 Internet. > >In the above approach, IPv6 should also play the role of locator in site >networks which implies that the site network should support IPv6. > >Have most of the site networks been ready for IPv6? Is it easy to upgrade >the routers in all the site networks to support IPv6? If the answers to the >above questions are "No", How about using IPv4(globally unique)+IPv4(locally >unique) or LD ID/AS num + IPv4(locally unique) as locator whereas using IPv6 >just as identifier?
There is already a name for this; it is called ISATAP: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5214.txt Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Best wishes, >Xiaohu XU > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > >> >> > End of story. >> >> > >> >> > (For one, earler versions of Windows don't use/support Windows >> >> > Update, and a >> >> > lot of people have it turned off anyway, from paranoia/prudence/ >> >> > whatever. But >> >> > just in general, there's a lot of old stuff out there, not just >> >> > Windows.) >> >> >> >> Even if everyone had Windows Update enabled, it would take >> >too long to >> >> get every system upgraded. >> > >> >Most of today's core routers have already been able to support >> >more than 1 >> >million routing entries, is there enough incentive for the >carriers to >> >deploy map&encap scheme within a short period. >> > >> >Should we take a survey to reach an agreement on when the new >> >address and >> >routing scheme should be deployed? >> > >> >> The most popular network-based application is your >favorite browser. >> >> How many of them are not on the latest rev? >> >> >> >> Upgrading roughly 2 to 4 CE routers at every site on the >> >Internet will >> >> happen in far less time than changing every host. >> > >> >The approach that map implemented by hosts and encapsulation >> >implemented by >> >ITRs is incremental deployable. If hosts have not been changed >> >to support >> >this capability, the ITR can implement the map and >> >encapsulation together. >> >The upgraded hosts will not suffer the initial packet >> >loss/latency pain. And >> >the ITR with upgraded site network doesn't need a cache. >> > >> >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 >> > > > > -- 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
