>>>> CONCERN #3: Motivations for Earlier Adoption of ILNP
>> >
>> > No, IMHO, the ILNP hosts should provide the same connectivity service to
>> > the legacy hosts as today. That's to say, once the ILNP host moves from one
>> > attachment point to anther due to re-homing (or mobility), the already
>> > established sessions should still survive.
>
> Disagree. That's service above and beyond what a legacy host would provide.
>
>
Today's session survival is provided by the RFC 4116 method,
i.e. it only occurs if the locator is unchanged.
RFC 3582 introduced a *new* requirement, namely that session
survival should occur even if the locator changes. Hence
shim6, of course.
So, we have two options (legacy behaviour and RFC 3582) and people
need to be clear which option they are referring to. I agree that
ILNP in legacy mode appears to be identical to RFC 4116. An analysis
of ILNP (and LISP) against RFC 3582 would be interesting.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
