> The third draft is now available at > http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html .
Looking at Strategy B, I have two comments. One is that "Assign multiple LOCs to each host such that in the network topography hosts appear as stubs in multiple locations..." appears to me to be quite clearly the *standard* model for IPv6, a.k.a. Plan A, so I would suggest inverting the names of Strategy A and Strategy B. The second comment is that "LOCs dynamically mapped to each host are pushed towards a distributed registry as they change." is only one variant. The other variant is that they aren't considered to be dynamically mapped but rather administratively mapped (in solutionism, that's called DNS). That doesn't change most of what you write, but it does affect the two major criticisms: 1. There's no problem with transport protocols as long as the IP stack conceals the address dynamics from the upper layer. It would be solutionism to point out that there's already running code for that. 2. If the LOCs are assigned administratively, the firewalls can deal with multiple LOCs. Brian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
