In einer eMail vom 20.01.2009 02:58:08 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
As far as I know, in terms of liveness testing of ETRs, there is no granularity finer than the ETR to test. So if we are using an ID / RLoc split, the liveness testing we are interested in is the reachability / efficacy of a given ETR. [There is the additional complication of the ETR being live, but not having reachability to the endpoint. That is a different problem than the liveness problem described in the draft. There are many additional problems...) ...with strategy A and B. But back to this liveness issue: If I want to drive/route from NY/Broadway to Sausolito / Main Street my best next hop might be derived from a proxy destination node in L.A.(because the US country map doesn't show the Main Street of Sausolito) While doing so why should I care for the liveness of this L.A.-router ?! Getting closer some S.F. -router might turn out to be the actual proxy dest. And that one might be ignored, too, getting still closer. Will say: Problem after problem which do not apply to strategy C. Further point: Now the Compact Routing experts may investigate stretch-ETR :-) Factor 17 was so far the biggest stretch value I have read. How big is stretch-ETR ? Further point: Mobile homing in combination with mobility. With this respect strategies A and B are invitations to disaster. Aren't they? Heiner Conversely, although the liveness testing must be on the basis of individual ETRs, it does seem likely that many hosts in a site will be trying to reach endpoints behind the same set of ETRs. As such, having a border guy (or someone else, if you really want to complicate life) testing / monitoring that liveness / reachability on behalf of the various sources within the site would seem likely to 1) reduce the probing traffic 2) increase the odds of having accurate data when packets need to be sent. Yours, Joel Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Scott, > >> As an endpoint, you are interested in reachability of specific >> endpoints. You don't care if a whole prefix is reachable, if the >> particular endpoint isn't reachable within that prefix. So if you >> delegate liveness monitoring to an agent, you are asking it to monitor >> specific locators. > > The e2e principle seems to make it clear that, ultimately, liveness is > the endpoint's responsibility, but that is usually interpreted as a > statement about what the transport layer or above should do. And they > already do it, 100% independently of what we do in layer 3 and below. > I think that limiting layer 3 liveness detection to the prefix level > (except presumably in the case of Mobile IP) is a perfectly good > engineering compromise, unless we're planning to repudiate [Saltzer]. > > Brian > > [Saltzer] End-To-End Arguments in System Design, J.H. Saltzer, > D.P.Reed, D.D.Clark, ACM TOCS, Vol 2, Number 4, November 1984, pp > 277-288. > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
