Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption

[[e-mail]]

 
In einer eMail vom 01.12.2009 01:54:40 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[e-mail]:

wrote  about this in April and updated the text after some helpful
and generally  positive feedback:

http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/


Does anyone  agree with some or all of this?



Robin,
I agree with all your "must be's" (btw you also enlists some  
non-requirement statements).
 
But why do you want to postpone considering MIP ?
 
Your (and other's) future routing architecture depends heavily on the  
continued existence of non-IP / telephone network architecture. You mention  
millions (billions ?) of mobile handsets and are afraid of their prefixes.
All I hear is mapping, mapping, mapping: enum-mapping,  RLOC-mapping...
 
Maybe I should join the choir and speak of location-mapping, i.e. of a  
location-namespace which is a seperate and new namespace. Then all other  
addresses, PI and PA, IPv4 and IPv6, E.164 and HITs, etc. could be serviced  
equally well.
 
Heiner