Robin, >-----Original Message----- >From: Robin Whittle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:22 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: Templin, Fred L; Xu Xiaohu; Dino Farinacci; Noel Chiappa >Subject: Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean > >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.)
ISATAP allows dual-stack nodes to discover routers that can reach destinations on the global IPv6 Internet. ISATAP is already widely implemented and deployed; in many deployments it is even turned on by default. Thanks - Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - 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
