[ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document

> Please send comments!
> <q.9-sg13-liasion-20060105.doc>
>

If we want to include speculative and forward looking text, I propose  
the following for the "IPv4/IPv6 transition" bullet:

---

A potential future approach to IPv6/IPv4 interaction is to implement  
the so called identifier/locator split in some way.  Among the  
various potential approaches being considered, the approach used in  
the HIP working group (draft-ietf-hip-arch-03.txt, in RFC Editor  
Queue) is among the more developed.  The parallel HIP research group  
is studying the problems related to real life deployability of HIP.   
If later decided to be adopted, HIP or some other identifier/locator  
split approach may make the difference of IPv4 and IPv6 irrelevant,  
allowing nodes to be mobile and multi-homed between the two versions  
of IP, without any IP-version related visibility to the  
applications.  [Technical remark:  While the architectural approach  
taken by identifier/locator split is different from the current  
tunnelling and encapsulation approaches, at the actual data-transport  
protocol level there is little if any difference.  The differences  
lie in IP-layer state set up between peer nodes and at the APIs  
available to the upper layer protocols and applications.]

---

However, that text may be too speculative and/or something that  
cannot be considered as a part of the IETF consensus.  I am  
definitely biased here, and leave it for others to make the evaluation.

--Pekka

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
ipv6-dir@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir