Re: [rrg] RANGI questions

Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> Wed, 24 February 2010 06:38 UTC

Message-ID: <4B84C9E1.2090909@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:40:33 +1100
From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
Organization: First Principles
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
References: <4B7E9C23.3020308@firstpr.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <4B7E9C23.3020308@firstpr.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rrg] RANGI questions
Precedence: list

As noted in (msg06105), in a number of messages I stated or implied
that ILNP requires upgrades to applications.  This was a mistake.
ILNP works with non-upgraded IPv6 applications.

Still, since AFAIK most applications only work with IPv4, ILNP would
require upgrades to most applications.

I wrote (msg06075, 2010-02-20):

> While some CEE architectures can use existing IPv6 applications (GSE and
> GLI-Split) RANGI is like ILNP and Name Based Sockets in requiring IPv6
> applications to be rewritten to use Identifiers and Locators.  

I now understand that GSE, GLI-Split and ILNP work with non-upgraded
IPv6 applications.  RANGI and Name Based Sockets require upgraded
IPv6 applications.  See my next message:

CES & CEE: GLI-Split; GSE, Six/One Router; 2008 sep./elim. paper (v3)

for an updated CEE architecture comparison table, which now includes
RANGI.

  - Robin