On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Tony Li wrote:
Lixia Zhang wrote:
2/ most importantly, I was calling attention to Postel's comments
on slides 7 & 8: these quotes were taken from the meeting minutes
then:
- “Transport layer ID is not an issue that we
need be concerned with for now. Once we
decide what to do for IP addresses, then
transport people can easily figure out how
they may use the address.”
Well, what we already know is that we want our routing tokens to be
changeable. We need hierarchy in the address space to provide
scalability. We have seen that we need to form that hierarchy on the
topology,
the above seems a general statement that everyone would agree.
the real question is: are we talking about a single address hierarchy
that everyone's routing table would conform to, or somewhat different
hierarchies as viewed from different ASes...
otherwise we have to morph the topology to fit the hierarchy, and
morphing the topology is expensive. So when a host changes its
position in the topology, the routing token needs to change.
I could not decipher the last sentence: when a host changes its
attachment point, its IP address changes -- do you mean routing token
= IP address?
Unfortunately, that breaks the transport connection.
depends.
there exist multiple implementations today that do not break transport
connections when host change IP addresses.
We already understand enough about the routing token and the
transport token to understand that we need to fix this overloading.
- “We must avoid circular dependencies;
- “we must define a substrate of the
system that can operate without DNS. ...
- “we must not depend on DNS to
bootstrap the core operation of the
system”
Relevance? I have yet to see one proposal make this mistake.
Do not depend on DNS to get packet delivered.
Note that using the DNS and creating a circular dependency are two
different things. We're already at the point where DNS is a
fundamental requirement for Internet operations.
for Internet applications.
If you cannot resolve www.google.com, www.yahoo.com and
www.cnn.com, then for all practical purposes, the net is down.
yes, from end users view point.
But we still want to be able to send IP packets even when DNS is done.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
