David Conrad wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 02:33 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > If we achieve stable locators, this problem largely goes away,
> > but stable names in themselves are insufficient IMHO.
>
> The problem isn't the DNS, but the concept of 'stable locators'. Given
> the need to aggregate, you simply can't have stability in locators if
> network topology changes.
Yes and no. That's to say that on certain assumptions (i.e. the
assumptions built into map+encap, 8+8, GSE, and MHAP) you can have
a much more stable locator than today. Such locators are stable under
a variety of *localized* topology changes, but not all of course. I
should have made it clear that is what I meant. (I think the Tony Hain
flavour of PI would also have a similar degree of stability.)
> Since locators need to change when topology
> changes, any solution you come up with will need to deal with
> propagation delay and security while at the same time dealing with
> scalability and performance. I would argue that the DNS can be
> contorted to deal with these requirements (although whether or not
> you'd want to is another question).
Indeed. My view is that chances of suitably contorting DNS are
much greater with the relatively stable locators I am thinking of.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
