On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > In today's world, the cannonical approach for that site is to use PI > addressing. This is necessary since the existence of two sets of PA > addresses would NOT give correspondent hosts a seamless failover experience. > Instead, it would result in an unacceptable service interruption. Thus, > sites argue for, and get PI addresses.
Even in ILNP, the remote correspondent host would see two PA locators for my host, not one. The the same failover problem would exist. Not correct? If correct, then do you mean the failover would be seamless with ILNP and not with the current Internet, even though both are involved with the same number of multiple PA locators/addresses? I'm wondering whether your description above is meant to blame the current Internet architecture itself or the wrong policy of ever start allocating PI addresses. If the PI address practice is to blame, why should we ever look for new architecture? If the Internet architecture itself is to blame, because it cannot do the 'seamless' failover as could be done with ILNP, then I could understand why we ever started this whole RRG procedure. Which is the case? -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
