Re: [RAM] Different approaches for different protocols

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Wed, 19 December 2007 20:33 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J55bO-00018d-Ck; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:33:14 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J55bM-00014j-Pc for ram@iab.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:33:12 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J55bM-0006lR-EU for ram@iab.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:33:12 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2007 12:33:11 -0800
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBJKXBBu017750; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:33:11 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBJKWg4B013809; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:33:07 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:32:49 -0800
Received: from normz.cisco.com ([10.21.80.90]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:32:49 -0800
Message-Id: <564A8854-E859-4CAE-B299-9343FF6A7E16@cisco.com>
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
To: RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <8FE686E6-D352-4324-88CC-2C9EC26A5871@extremenetworks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: Re: [RAM] Different approaches for different protocols
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:32:52 -0800
References: <8FE686E6-D352-4324-88CC-2C9EC26A5871@extremenetworks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2007 20:32:49.0070 (UTC) FILETIME=[52185CE0:01C8427E]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=899; t=1198096391; x=1198960391; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dino@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dino=20Farinacci=20<dino@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RAM]=20Different=20approaches=20for=20 different=20protocols |Sender:=20; bh=trNAuZcVNuGD3it1P51uu9T261TgP8/YHtv+XmIplSQ=; b=n2UXnbY65o9giXpHUhIxYwTMkw43wMBlxVu1DKcoQ3Ltuy14RSm+SZFb5K 6va1d+HgM9OBs4vkWcO0+SI9NYrIu1x6/wWQ0PppDy0+G+SGxG6LoSz6VE7c 7nrJXDKFWd;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dino@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: ram@iab.org
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

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