[85705] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Sun Oct 16 04:29:28 2005
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 04:28:57 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <C834464F-0BDD-455B-A48D-958E5A91AA38@tony.li>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Tony Li wrote:
>
>
> It's just a mess. I think that we all can agree that a real locator/
> identifier split is the correct architectural direction, but that's
> simply not politically tractable. If the real message that the
> provider community is trying to send is that they want this, and not
> IPv6 as it stands today, then that's the message that should be sent,
> without reference to shim6.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
How is a split between locator / identifier any different logicaly from
the existing ipv4 source routing?
I thought that got dead ended?
Or is a table lookup going to be needed?
Wont all those tables need to be in the exact (or close to) same place
as the current routing tables?
Appreciate any enlightenment.
Joe
