Sam,
thanks for the update - this is the first I've seen on the
IETF list about LISP for a while, so I assume that it's
appropriate to continue discussion there at this time; I'm
not a member of the LISP list.
We've had a fairly lively discussion of the charter text on the LISP
mailing list, its been my sense that the community has come to a rough
consensus on what we want the WG to do, but haven't ironed out the best
way to articulate that in the Charter just yet. Sam has been diligently
grinding through the details of the wording - for which I thank him most
sincerely. :-)
One point of clarification: Is it the intent of the LISP WG
that "IP" in this proposed charter text should be read as
"IPv4 or IPv6"?
Yes, perhaps on the first occurrence of such we could add "(IPv4 or
IPv6)"
My understanding (seen from a VERY long distance) is that the
routing scaling problems are substantially the same for both
dialects of IP, and that initial efforts have focused on
encapsulating either, with the initial experiments using IPv4
as the encapsulating protocol.
Is this understanding correct?
It is, with the note that the initial implementations are supporting
both IPv4 and IPv6 as the (outer) encapsulating protocol, and the
(inner) encapsulated protocol.
-Darrel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf