Re: Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Discussing IPv10.
Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 19 April 2021 20:48 UTC
Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6EC3A437E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I_x32ou2nC1X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBC7A3A4378 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ietf@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 13JKmUnY077678 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 21:48:30 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Discussing IPv10.
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAMm+LwhV01N_uuFV8TfiyegpqDLmUYwxBcmkUAGG-HfJ7vSB+Q@mail.gmail.com> <989A5048-5EA8-479B-9231-D61B646E46F5@strayalpha.com> <CAMm+Lwhy0c6G7YLx8n7Ya7psG6VxcEckk-ncKg750rscuz-Yaw@mail.gmail.com> <20210419085006.GA27873@nic.fr> <72CCD936-0A86-427F-A7B1-ABC79C3FAC8F@strayalpha.com> <CAMm+Lwj5NDX9LAHfZJXtjqModa4R4WOFQVA5xsscY99J1v9Z2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <c5bc1d02-643d-4ac2-2d07-36edffec8035@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 21:48:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.47
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwj5NDX9LAHfZJXtjqModa4R4WOFQVA5xsscY99J1v9Z2g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/k8R6dbyRYSPWtxXbt7hZeq0HljA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:48:43 -0000
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote on 19/04/2021 20:32: > The one approach that is meaningfully different and could work is to > dispense with the IPv6 source AND destination addresses and prefix > packets with the destination ASN number instead. I guess an ASN is attractive to the extent that it's a number that every routing entity already has, but it's got nearly 40 years of baggage and encumbering it with even more is not likely to end well. Do we want a single routing policy for every identifier in an ASN? Fine for leaf sites with small numbers of identifiers; not so good for larger networks. It's worth noting that there have been plenty of locator/identifier proposals over the years. LISP was the most successful but is still not widely used on the internet. Nick
- New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Khaled Omar
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Lloyd W
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Khaled Omar
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Khaled Omar
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Ofer Inbar
- RE: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Khaled Omar
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Joe Touch
- RE: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Khaled Omar
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Phillip Hallam-Baker
- New Approach For Discussing IPng Brian E Carpenter
- RE: New Approach For Discussing IPng Vasilenko Eduard
- Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Discus… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPng Stephane Bortzmeyer
- RE: New Approach For Discussing IPng Khaled Omar
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Tom Beecher
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPng Tom Beecher
- RE: New Approach For Discussing IPng Khaled Omar
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPng Christopher Morrow
- RE: New Approach For Discussing IPng Khaled Omar
- Re: Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Di… Joseph Touch
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPv10. Joseph Touch
- Re: New Approach For Discussing IPng Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Di… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Di… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Di… Nick Hilliard
- Re: Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Di… John Levine
- Re: Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Di… Phillip Hallam-Baker