Hi all,

I have updated the RANGI draft to -03 version. Any comment is welcomed.

Hi Tony, would you please update the RANGI reference in the recommendation 

Best wishes,

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:x...@huawei.com]
> 发送时间: 2010年2月11日 16:14
> 收件人: 'Tony Li'; 'Lixia Zhang'
> 抄送: 'RRG'
> 主题: Rebuttal for RANGI//re: [rrg] Reminder
> Hi Tony and Lixia,
> The rebuttal for RANGI is as follows:
> The reason why the ID->Locator lookup is separated from the FQDN->ID lookup
> is: 1) not all applications are tied to FQDNs, and 2) it seems not necessary
> to require all devices to possess a FQDN of their own. Basically RANGI uses
> DNS to realize the ID->Locator mapping system. If there are too many entries
> to be maintained by the authoritative servers of a given Administrative Domain
> (AD), Distribute Hash Table (DHT) technology can be used to make these
> authoritative servers scale better, e.g., the mappings maintained by a given
> AD will be distributed among a group of authoritative servers in a DHT 
> fashion.
> As a result, the robustness feature of DHT is inherited naturally into the
> ID->Locator mapping system. Meanwhile, there is no trust issue since each AD
> authority runs its own DHT ring which maintains only its presidial mappings.
> For host mobility, if communicating entities are RANGI nodes, the mobile node
> will notice the correspondence node of its new locator once its locator 
> changes
> due to a mobility or re-homing event. Meanwhile, it should also update its
> locator information in the ID->Locator mapping system timely by using the
> Secure DNS Dynamic Update mechanism defined in [RFC3007]. In case of
> simultaneous mobility, at least one of them has to resort to the ID->Locator
> mapping system for resolving the correspondence node’s new locator so as to
> continue their communication. If the correspondence node is a legacy host,
> Transit Proxies, which play the similar function as the home-agents in Mobile
> IP, will relay the packets between the communicating parties.
> RANGI uses proxies (e.g., Site Proxy and Transit Proxy) to deal with both 
> legacy
> IPv6 and IPv4 sites. Since proxies function as RANGI hosts, they can handle
> Locator Update Notification messages sent from remote RANGI hosts (or even 
> from
> remote RANGI proxies) correctly. Hence there is no edge-to-edge aliveness
> problem. Details will be specified in the latter version of RANGI-PROXY.
> The intention that RANGI uses IPv4-embeded IPv6 addresses as locators is to
> reduce the total deployment cost of this new Internet architecture and to 
> avoid
> renumbering the site internal routers when such a site changes ISPs.
> Best wishes,
> Xiaohu
> ________________________________________
> 发件人: rrg-boun...@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-boun...@irtf.org] 代表 Tony Li
> 发送时间: 2010年2月11日 5:37
> 收件人: 'RRG'
> 主题: Re: [rrg] Reminder
> Hi folks,
> Remember this?  I’ve seen one submission.  Are folks working on things?
> Tony
> ----------------
> Hi all,
> We've had a bit of a schedule slip. We are still trying to hit a final 
> document
> date of Mar. 8. That gives us just less than 7 weeks. The next deadline for
> a rebuttal is Feb. 9. The deadline for counterpoints will then be Mar. 2. This
> will give us a few days for final document prep.
> The word count limit for the rebuttal is 500 words.
> Regards,
> Tony

rrg mailing list

Reply via email to