Hi Fred, You wrote:
>> From: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Hi Noel and Dino, >> >>>> You can drop the "Without that commitment". It's very simple: >>>> >>>> Any solution that *requires* host changes is infeasible. >> >> According to this criteria, many proposals, including v6 EID over v4 >> RLOC of LISP have been sentenced to death. > > 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. I think it is true, since v6 EIDs mean that all participating hosts must be using IPv6 addresses for all their applications. This can't happen for a large number of hosts, or a nearly complete coverage of hosts, without major host changes to their OS and/or their applications. Also, these hosts would need IPv6 connectivity in some way, at least to and from the ITRs and ETRs they rely upon - so that would involve router changes, more ISP management work etc. If the IPv6 connectivity only went as far as the nearest ETRs and ITRs, how would hosts send and receive packets to and from IPv6 hosts which were not part of the map-encap scheme? >From what I understand from your description of ISATAP: http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01086.html http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5214.txt all participating hosts must be using IPv6 for all their applications. That means ISATAP would not come close to meeting the criteria of deployability I described in (10) here: Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean - 2 questions 2008-03-22 http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00957.html This criteria has no short name, but here are two shortish descriptions, followed by a fuller definition: "No significant barriers to widespread deployment due to initially low uptake rate, or disruption of existing practices" or: "The zero (or relatively low) critical mass criteria for ubiquitous deployment on an incremental basis without outside inducements" (10) The technology must be able to be introduced without disrupting existing practices. After some low specified level of initial deployment, ideally zero, everyone (or at least most people) who deploys the technology receives benefits (maybe net benefits in some short enough time-frame after accounting for one-off purchase and installation costs) which are not only positive, but substantial and likely to attract many other end-users to the technology. For this to be true, the benefits received must not depend much or at all on what proportion of other users have adopted the technology. Therefore, if the technology would be fundamentally attractive to many, most or all end-users once deployed by most or all end-users, it would also be attractive enough to the very first (or after some low, specified, level of adoption) to actually become widely deployed via a purely incremental means, without inducements or a major up-front deployment before any end-users gain significant benefits. I think any map-encap scheme needs to meet the above criteria before we could consider developing and deploying it. (The above is what I always thought was meant by "incrementally deployable", but I now recognise this is much more stringent than what some or many people meant by this term.) - Robin -- 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
