Hi Noel,
In your message of 5 December, you wrote some things about map-encap
systems which is not true for Ivip:
> I saw "a new packet-switching system" because at the ITR you have to keep
> track of all the ETRs which are available to get to the ultimate destination;
> decide which one to use; make sure it's up, and switch to a different one if
> it's not; etc, etc. All sounds very familiar, doesn't it? :-)
In Ivip, the ITR only has a single ETR address to send packets to.
The ITR is not involved in reachability testing.
It is up to the end-user network to do reachability testing and to
change the mapping of their micronet to whatever ETR is working now.
In practice, they will probably pay another company to do this -
and that company will change the mapping of their micronets if one
ETR becomes unreachable, so the packets are sent to another ETR which
is reachable.
The resulting mapping change is propagated to all full database query
servers within a few seconds. They propagate the change, within a
fraction of a second, to every ITR which recently requested and
received mapping for any address affected by the change. ("Recent"
means within the caching time specified in the mapping response.)
I don't think the ITR -> ETR aspect of Ivip, LISP, APT or TRRP
constitutes a "new packet-switching system". These proposals involve
introducing a new architectural system in the routing and address
systems.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
