On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: > no, mobility is 'free' with ilnp/gse/8+8, it's just a class of > multihoming with a higher rate of underlying change. I was > specifically talking about multihoming.
OK. Taken. >> if only for >> mobility, there're a number of other proposals already out there >> including HIP. > > which has gotten stellar adoption so far, right up there with SCTP... > we're off topic some. I was talking about multihoming. The ability to > have redundant/resilient/cost-effective paths to/from remote > destinations, and (with ilnp/gse/8+8) the ability to do that without > introducing lots of state in the global routing system. OK. You're talking about multi-homing. > assuming ONLY pa? the internet wouldn't be what it is today. If you > could assume that there were ONLY PA addresses in use and thus no one > wanted to 'multihome' then... it's the same as ILNP modulo some DNS > hackery which ILNP requires. OK. > Note, you lose all redundancy, resiliency and convenience of having > local identifiers which are stable. This will be my private homework yet, if the local identifier(host IP address) would not point to the interface but to the node itself. I know a lot of people out there already know much about this scenario, which they say will only be futile. I'm not convinced about this yet, and not to annoy other experts here, I'll keep this to my private homework. Whether local addressing could survive for routing scalability. >> - against old hosts transitioning across multiple PA addresses. > > old-hosts don't do this, they have a locator. if that locator changes > (they renumber) then all their current connections stop, all reset and > all restart when all distant endpoints re-learn the new locators. Sad there's no mechanism (or inherently impossible) that a multi-home site and so all nodes inside deal with multiple PA addressed assigned to them in a seamless (not causing the breakages you describe above) manner. > under ILNP you have the option to move locators 'at will' (gated by > how quickly you can tell the exisitng endpoints "and start talking to > me via this new locator, NOW.") When you change attachment points all > existing communications just keeps on going, without > loss/reset/restart/timeout. Of course with ILNP. > Further to do something similar in today's internet you must announce > new state into the global routing table, you keep your local > 'identifier' (which is your ip address) unchanged and you move > attachment points as you want. You make everyone else pay for the > extra state management in the routing system though :( (nicely they > make you pay for their extra state...) Not if there'd be a mechanism that you keep your local node address and not to have to report your intra-site moving to change any state in the global routing table... which, apparently, is already a nonsense to most routing experts in this group. -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
