On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 00:28, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> But when multihoming enters, in particular there are nodes which have
> multiple interfaces enabled at the same time, then things get more
> difficult.
> Imagine the multihomed node has two interfaces and there are multiple neighbors
> on each of those interfaces. On interface A a node might pick the name
> "laptop" and another node might pick the same name of interface B without
> conflict; the lookup for duplications can't be forwarded since there is no
> router between the two links. In this case, independently of what addressing
> and scope-ids, a application looking up the name "laptop" will have a
> non-unique name.
I suppose it comes down to what one considers good enough. In practise
people will have to learn to pick names that have a very good
probability of being unique. Unique not only in the current situation
but also in any ad-hoc situation the user might run into during the
course of the day. Having to change the name of the device every time
the set of neighbors changes is a pretty good way of learning that words
like "laptop" are not particularly good choises.
The conflict resolution protocol is just a way of letting the user know
that a particular name is ambiguous in the domain that is currently
reachable. One of the users will then have to pick another name and
announce it to any other users who knew about the old name and were
using it. Having the conlict resolution protocol remove a name or change
it to something else will not remove the confusion, since the old name
will still be lodged into the minds of the people who need it.
Frankly, I don't see that having multiple intefaces makes all that much
difference.
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
