On 10/20/08 5:55 PM, Lixia Zhang allegedly wrote: > There was a joint NANOG/ARIN session last week on > "Moderated Panel: What Would Jon have Done About the Addressing > Challenges Currently Facing Us?" > > this was the last session on NANOG-44 agenda > http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/agenda.php > All talk slides are online, and I thought they might be interesting to > at least some RRG people > My talk is at > http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/presentations/Wednesday/Zhang_Wed_N44.pdf
"Dependency on DNS": If we substitute using a different distributed database to resolve identifiers to locators, Jon would still be concerned. Actually not just identifiers, but anything for which a route is not known and for which a separate mapping system has to be used to figure out how to deliver a packet, including scoped locators. However, the only way to avoid this is to change all the hosts, and most of the approaches that change all the hosts still have site renumbering problems. The only way to avoid site renumbering problems is to completely decouple internal locators from external locators (GSE). Map-n-encap would upset Jon, as written GSE depends heavily on DNS, GSE conversion would take longer to solve routing scaling than we have time for, and nobody wants to make NAT the centerpiece of the new architecture. How bad is the "relying on something like DNS" problem for map-n-encap? I would only be concerned if some non-technical issue made it difficult to build redundancy and dynamicity into a mapping system. Security need be no worse than in routing. Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
