> From: Patrick Frejborg <[email protected]>
>> Ah, no - LEID's are globally visible, and globally unique.
> Do they really need to be globally visible and globally unique in the
> future?
Yes - they need to be globally visible because they are the names that
endpoints use to identify each other, and you may want to talk to another
endpoint anywhere (hence the need for global scope).
> Do we need network aliveness detection or is this functionality
> something that an endpoint could take care of?
> An endpoint is interested if the remote endpoint is alive or not
When you say "network aliveness detection" I gather you mean 'detection of
endpoint liveness by the network'? If so, yes, I agree, we should probably
not have the 'network' (by which I assume you mean routers) doing liveness
detection.
> if there is a problem the endpoint could try another path to the remote
> endpoint
The problem is that in the current state of the architecture (in particular,
the routing architecture), the host can't really do this. Yes, in those cases
where the destination has multiple locators (because of either site or host
multi-homing), use of another locator _may_ bypass the problem.
However, this is a degenerate case: not all endpoints will have multiple
locators; the problem may be close to the source, so that different
destination locators all still cross the same failure point, etc, etc. Thus,
in many cases where there is a usable alternative path, that path with not be
discoverable through use of an alternative locator for the destination.
So the real solution to that particular issue is a better routing
architecture.
> IPv4 will be around for a very long time - especially in the old
> economies
My point was stronger than that, actually - I was arguing that IPv4 addresses
will be _central_ for a long time to come.
> But if you ease up the rule of globally uniqueness a little bit then
> you could start to reuse the edge prefixes and perhaps reduce the
> amount of NAT
Huh? NAT is _precisely_ 'making edge prefixes not globally unique'! This is
done so that a single prefix can be reused - the exact goal you list!
For example, the prefix 192.168.0.0 is already reused over and over again.
Are you talking about re-using the addresses on the other side of that NAT?
That's just double-NAT. NAT _is_ re-use of prefixes.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
