On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Naoki Matsuhira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2016/07/21 23:56, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: >> >> WG >> >> There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following strong >> advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a consensus on >> converging on a common encapsulation. Two sets of questions were asked: >> (1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap? >> (2) For a given encap, do you have significant technical objections? > > > I want to inform to this mailing list that I proposed ME6E-FP and ME6E-PR at > the yokohama meeting. I also have proposal M46E-FP and M46E-PR (past called > SA46T). > > These encapsulation technologies are based on address mapping. ME6E use IPv6 > address which mapping MAC address, and M46E use IPv6 address which mapping > IPv4 address. > > I understand too many encapsulation technologies, however these my proposal > are simple, and may contribute to the Internet. > > I believe address mapping approach is unique, so I want to propose again. > It's not unique (very little is any more ;-) ), it's another manifestation of identifier/locator split ;-). Please look at ILA (draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-02) which we are proposing in int-area. An encoded Ethernet address might might be suitable as another addressing variant in ILA.
Tom _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
