Hey Ran, > On 9 Dec 2008, at 10:46, David Meyer wrote: >> In hybrid network-based rewriting schemes (e.g., GSE), >> the host doesn't know what source is being used, so while >> it knows the destination ingress points (those are in the >> DNS), it doesn't what source is being used to attempt to >> reach the correspondent host. So it also can't implement >> a strategy to search the space of available <src,dest> >> pairs for a workable pair. > > OK. > > Would you agree that: IF the host selects the Source Locator, > which (as you say) is NOT what the GSE documents say, then > the source host could use the same strategy as in today's Internet > (e.g. search the space of available <s,d> pairs to find a workable > pair).
Yes, but then the value of GSE would be somewhat (if not
totally) diminished, at least if you believe that hiding
the source RG is fundemental to being able to do
aggregation at the scale we're interested in. At that it
would seem that you've given up on the core of what GSE
is trying to do.
But yes, if you convert GSE into something like SHIM6 (by
letting hosts know their source RG), then the locator
path liveness problem is something like O(n^2).
>>> To the extent that folks agree with the above, it would be helpful
>>> to add discussion of this as a current issue in the Meyer & Lewis
>>> draft.
>>
>> Be glad to, to the extent that I agree.
>
> Thanks.
Sure, its a good suggestion.
>>> To the extent that folks disagree with the above, then it would
>>> be helpful if the Meyer & Lewis draft explained why folks believe
>>> the existing deployed Internet does not have the same issue,
>>> and at least describe why the scenario outlined above doesn't.
>>
>> See above. Most of that text is already in the
>> draft. What could be added is how hosts work today
>> (without any loc/id split technology). Is that what you
>> are looking for? That seems a good idea if so.
>
> Adding discussion of how things work today, including when a
> multi-homed source talks with a multi-homed destination (where
> multi-homed means that a node has connections to more than one
> IP subnet at the same time) would be really great.
>
> Having the current deployment case presented and discussed
> provides a nice baseline for comparison.
Good feedback. I'll see that it gets into the next rev.
Thanks,
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
