Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches

Eik Nordmark wrote:
>>what about cgas?
>>They are locators, so you can use them for refferals to non multi6 apps 
>>and hosts, they allow to map from id to locators using reverse dns, and 
>>they are crypto in nature
>>seems a good candidate to me :-)
> 
> 
> A downside of CGA approaches is that they would, on a global basis,
> cast the /64 subnet prefix boundary in stone forever.
> This is different than SeND which only assumes the /64 on a single link,
> and one can envision SeND evolving to handle different subnet prefix lengths
> over time.
> 
> Different people probably have very different level of concern for
> "/64 forever in stone" ranging from it being a good simplification
> to a fatal repeat of the 8 bit IPv4 network number + 24 bit host number
> (before Class B and C was invented).

Good point. The /64 boundary is only "architectural" in one place, stateless
autoconfig, and even that is a changeable decision.

CGAs have other downsides for multihoming, too.

    Brian