|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <7e06eca643eefd43fdad2ccfde68f2fa@isc.org> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 00:34:53 +0200 To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On 7-jul-2005, at 0:18, Joe Abley wrote: > With great hindsight it would have been nice if the multi6/shim6 > design exercise had come *during* the IPv6 design exercise, rather > than afterwards: we might have ended up with a protocol/addressing > model that accommodated both the address size problem and also the > DFZ state bloat issue. Oh well. Well, maybe I'm too optimistic here, but I believe that if a real solution to the DFZ problem presents itself, the IETF will bend over backwards and then some to shoehorn it into IP. But it certainly looks like a small DFZ table and portable address space are fundamentally incompatible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |