In einer eMail vom 02.04.2008 02:05:48 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[Q01] Does the scheme require host changes in order for hosts to participate in it? This includes adopting dual stack IPv4/v6 and applications which in fact use IPv6. (A No for this answer means the scheme could work, in different versions, with both IPv4 and IPv6.) Anything proposed by Heiner Hummel. Yes, as much as I understand his proposals, which seem to involve radical changes to routing and addressing. Robin, the Yes can be replaced by a No, if the ingress node added and the egress node removed the geographical coordinates. Of course, the ingress node must be enabled to add them. It must cache them, e.g. upon a preceding DNS lookup according to the experimental RFC 1712. I know RFC1712 was hardly been read: There where it nails down the encoding, longitudes and latitudes are terribly mixed up :-( The changes are such "radical" that there will be (my guess) approx. n=600 nodes and 3n links to be maintained by any node. This could really be done IN PARALLEL to the current BGP. Hence, incremental deployability is not an issue at all. Compare it with car navigation: You still may attend the direction signs along the roads, though some will attend the voice of the navigation system instead. Heiner
