[ppml] Fw: IRS goes IPv6!

[Christopher Morrow]

On 2/23/06, Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:

> * when a packet gets routed onto the internet, outside the site, the
> exit router translates it to the core-prefix, that is provided by the
> upstream provider. The upstream ISP's routes are in the "global routing
> table", these can thus become quite small with multiple layers.
>

hurrah! NAT! wasn't NAT one of the reasons that ipv6 was a 'saviour' ? oh...

> * when the packet arrives at a outer-perimeter, these place the
> outer-address back again to restore the globaly-unique property.
>

could we just use ipv4 and tunnel over gre? or ip-in-ip? or ipsec? oh...

> Also the address can be passed around as it is globally unique, no
> rewriting needed, doesn't break end-to-end and makes many people, except
> most likely TE folks who only get a outer-perimiter IP, happy. The
> latter group really just have to face that they are not big enough
> unforunately (unless somebody comes up with a cool solution(tm) :)

'not big enough' doesn't matter for TE considerations. If a large
enough sink or source is in the 'wrong' place, game-over. without
working TE you are stuck.

>
> Sort of tunneling over the core, or double-NAT.

see comment #1 and comment #2. Combine those with comment #3 and I see
no compelling reason to make any strides toward ipv6 deployment. Were
you trying to make v6 more palatable? If so you really ought to work
on delivery and message...

>
> The IETF is already working on these kinds of ideas ;)
>

hurray, why do we need the IETF working on NAT and Tunneling?

> Greets,

and to you as well.