Tony, [clipped...]
> >> Relevance? I have yet to see one proposal make this mistake. > > > > Do not depend on DNS to get packet delivered. > > Sorry, we already broke that. When DNS is down, the net is down. ;-) > > > But we still want to be able to send IP packets even when DNS is done. > > Well, assuming that the end user already has the necessary bits, I have > yet to see any proposal that will not deliver the packets, even if DNS > is down. Did I miss something? With ILNP, it will revert to legacy > IPv6 semantics, which seems perfectly acceptable. > > Note that all proposals are going to have issues when their mapping > system is down. Again, the real point of the original point is to avoid > the circular dependency, where you can't ever get the system up. > Again, I haven't seen anyone fall into that trap. And it applies to the > mapping system, not just DNS. Another point to consider is to minimize the total number of mapping systems in the whole system. Or to put it differently, try to maximize re-use of the mapping systems. Use of dynamic DNS updates with ILNP is an example of this. Yakov. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
