James Carlson wrote:
> This means that, for instance, a big server like jurassic.sfbay (which
> has quite a few interfaces) will need to support communication with
> peers that have LLAs. If it doesn't, then LLA just won't work on
> those networks -- the clients using LLAs will be cut off from talking
> to jurassic.sfbay.
This is part of the question 3. Is it OK not to "fully" support
the above setup? For example, by default an app in a system R
with only routable addresses cannot initiate communication,
meaning sending the first packet, to a LLA only system L. But if
the system L makes first contact, meaning sending the first packet,
to system R, then R knows how to talk to L as it knows where L is.
Is this limitation OK for the possible usage model?
I think it is possible to have a "consistent" failure mode if we
have some "careful" restrictions. It is not pretty... But if we
must have LLA support, maybe this is a reasonable way to move
forward. What do people think about this?
> I think routing of LLA must be prohibited. There's no mechanism to
> ensure uniqueness of LLAs across separate subnets.
Sure.
--
K. Poon.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
