Re: [RAM] Different approaches for different protocols

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

Ran, first off, really good post.

> 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?

Dino

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram