Subject: RE: Possible IAB workshop on routing and addressing participants?

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:28:24 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>

    > I believe that most of [the ISPs] them see the writing on the wall with
    > regard to the remaining lifetime of v4 and would welcome an alternative
    > to v6.

I'm not sure I quite see the connection here, between "routing" and "IPv6".

After all, the routing architecture (and, potentially, its namespace) aren't
really connected to the internetwork packet format. (Interestingly, IPv4 made
the choice to make the router<->router packet format be identical to the
host<->router packet format - a congruency a new routing architecture
wouldn't necessarily have to retain.) There have certainly been past plans to
deploy an entirely new routing/addressing architecture, while retaining the
existing internetwork packet format, and we could certainly do the same
again here.

Also, IPv6 is currently using basically the same routing/addressing
architecture as IPv4 (modulo the proposed Multi6 stuff). Or is that your
point (that they are getting tired of the existing Ipv4/v6 routing
architecture)?

	Noel

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

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:17:08 +0100

At Wednesday 21/06/2006 12:28 -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>  (Interestingly, IPv4 made
>wouldn't necessarily have to retain.)

The ATM NNI and UNI interfaces didn't teach any lessons?

L.