Re: [RAM] Different approaches for different protocols

> On  19 Dec 2007, at 15:32, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> So I would suggest that folks think about IPv4 and IPv6 solution
>>> approaches separately.  For example, while one might want one of
>>> the existing proposal for IPv4 (partly for expediency and partly
>>> because IPv4 has more constraints), one might well want a different
>>> more architecturally fundamental change for IPv6 (partly because
>>> the protocol is more flexible due to extra bits in the header
>>> and partly because we have more time to study, prototype, and
>>> design a more elegant solution).
>>
>> So let me propose something:
>>
>> 1) For IPv4, use LISP encapsulation as spec'ed in the -05 draft.
>> 2) For IPv6, use header address translation (of the high-order 8- 
>> bytes),
>>  spec that out as GSE++.
>> 3) Have both use the same mapping database infrastructure.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> If we added 2) to the LISP draft would people be happy with that?
>
>
>
> Hmm.
>
> Suggestions:
>
> (A) I'd encourage keeping your concepts (1) and (2) separate,
> in separate drafts and ideally with separate names, at least for now.
>
> (B) Separately, modularity and clean architecture would argue for
> keeping the mapping database structure separately specified
> from any other bits of protocol design.
>
> Rationale:
>
> For my first suggestion (A), I'll note that approach (1) above
> might be used for both IPv4 and IPv6 (at least in theory),
> while approach (2) above isn't obviously applicable to IPv4.
>
> For my second suggestion (B), one might use the currently proposed
> LISP encapsulation, but with some alternative (not yet designed
> or proposed) mapping database schema [or vice versa].  So keeping
> things separate and modular seems beneficial all around for now.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Ran

All good points, thanks.

Dino

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram