Subject: [RAM] (no subject)

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:59:06 -0400

Earlier Heiner Hummel wrote:
> Routing is a big issue, but as far as I can observe, all just stick
> to the traditional mechanisms and prefer a fundamental change rather
> be postponed. TE is accused to be part of the problem. But isn't
> in this case the mechanism itself a subject for chapter 11 ?

As near as I can tell, LISP changes how routing works.
Certainly several large ISP staffers believe that some
variants of LISP can alleviate their current concerns
about scalability of inter-domain routing (and affordability
of backbone routers).

>  Identification is an urgent problem, too (e.g.we are running out
> of IPv4-addresses).  Brian wrote: "is more so" meaning IPv6 is just
> more of IPv4. Very true.

We have lots of identifiers at hand, however, so I don't know
that this is as big an issue as routing.  For example, there
are IEEE 802/1394 MAC addresses, which are widely available
on end systems today and are in no danger of running out soon.
To provide another example, fully-qualified domain names are
widely available today and are also in no danger of running
out soon.

> Correct me if I am wrong: the IPv6 address space
> does not INCLUDE the IPv4 address space.

Not correct.  There is a special prefix in IPv6 that says
the low-order 32 bits are an IPv4 address.  [RFC-4291,
Section 2.5.5.2, Page 10-11]

>  One for E.164 (instead of DNS mapping a la enum) ? Etc. etc.

I believe that it might also be possible to algorithmically
place an E.164 into an NSAP and then into an IPv6 address
using the special prefix that means an NSAP is in the low-order
bits of the IPv6 address.  It isn't clear to me whether
this is explicitly documented at present.

> The current discussion rather shows that the split itself is the  
> real goal, the true objective - which is not.

I do not believe the split itself is the goal here.  The current
discussion has not indicated to me that the split is the goal;
to the contrary, several of us have indicated that a split is
not necessarily required.  Solving certain operational issues
is the goal.  And the LISP proposal doesn't really split the
Identifiers from the Locators, instead having various objects
with mixed semantics (i.e. addresses), so that is a specific
example of a current proposal without a clear split between
pure Locators and pure Identifiers.

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]

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

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:27:23 -0700

> Section 2.5.5.2, Page 10-11]

Or even ([RFC4214], Section 6).

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:27:23 -0700

Fred