[89324] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Per Heldal)
Tue Mar 7 17:28:40 2006
From: "Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc>
To: "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <0561FDBF-525D-4735-A502-EE11A301A938@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:28:00 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:24:59 +0100, "Kurt Erik Lindqvist"
<kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> said:
[snip]
> Ok, so shim6 doesn't require a change to the transport layer and it
> doesn't change the forwarding plane. It does create a mapping state
> at the end-nodes. So claiming it to be either is probably wrong.
>
I stand corrected. Was commenting from a flawed perspective. The most
correct is probably to consider it a sub-layer to the existing L3.
//per
--
Per Heldal
http://heldal.eml.cc/
