Subject: Re: The Internet 2.0 box Was: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:59:46 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

    > what we really need is a layer of indirection at the BGP level so that
    > sites can have stable addresses without having to NAT.

You mean, have a namespace for use by the path-selection algorithms, one
which is separate from the namespace used for end-end naming?

That's a really good idea; too bad we didn't think of it in time to suggest
it to the IPv6 designers, it would have been really nice to have that in IPv6.

	Noel

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:34:55 +0900 (JST)

> sites can have stable addresses without having to NAT.

	we should rather drop "stable address" requirement by having session
	layer protocol (something better than TCP).

itojun

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:01:01 -0400

> it to the IPv6 designers, it would have been really nice to have that in IPv6.
actually I think it can be done without changes to IPv6, since it
doesn't affect the packet format, and the only things that have to know
about it are routers and network management tools.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:04:11 -0400

> 	layer protocol (something better than TCP).
having a session layer protocol wouldn't remove the need for stable
addresses.