I always thought you would come up with some hierarchical location value space when ILNP will be processed. Now I realize, you will (re)use IPv6-prefixes (restricted to 64 bits) that are uniquely assigned to so-called point of attachments of any particular ISP's subnetwork, right? BTW, why prefix ? why not address of precisely 64 bits? Hosts communicate via DNS their point-of-attachments' prefix (whereby multiple hosts may share the same such prefix). All these point-of-attachment routers communicate to the outside that they have reachability to such a prefix. This is the same as what a BGP router is doing. I.e. this doesn't reduce the number of prefixes. By assuming that today's network administrator do a good job while trying to come up with reasonable prefixes, I cannot see what is the ILNP's reduction of prefixes to be spread all over. A different syntactical point: You camouflage your design by using the term locator although you do not intend that to be a denotion of location. Granted, you just continue with this bad habit which indeed comes from the "loc/id"-split discussion, where also at no point in time "loc" expressed anything like location. You hereby play foul to those who want location-based routing, because you educate people to understand something else than a locator ought to mean. And you pave the ground such that people would get confused when someone uses the word locator in its true meaning. I am convinced that you would say NO if a straw poll statement states: "A node's locator" denotes the location of that node". You provide (via DNS) a different way to learn about the mentioned prefix, but that's it. I accredit to you that you won't worsen the stretch-of-path behavior. You still do the same, only slightly changed. But you also won't improve routing capabilities (extending to numer of alternative detours, selecting the right alternative based on actual traffic sizes). Heiner In einer eMail vom 16.06.2010 20:00:26 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]:
Earlier, Heiner Hummel wrote: > draft-rja-ilnp-intro-03, Section 1, Page 4, says in part: > % The high-order 64-bits of the IPv6 address become the Locator. > % The Locator indicates the subnetwork point of attachment for > % a node. In essence, the Locator names a subnetwork. Locators > % are also known as Routing Prefixes. > > Yes, this was all that I had found before asking my question. > Now Tony tells me, it is simply the IPv6 address space. Tony's response is fine, if slightly imprecise, but apparently his comment was made with respect to ILNPv6 rather than in general. (I mean "imprecise" above in that an IPv6 Address is a 128-bit object that includes a 64-bit routing prefix; meanwhile an ILNPv6 Locator is a 64-bit object that is a 64-bit routing prefix). For ILNPv4, Locators are formed from IPv4 routing prefixes. While the engineering of ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 are necessarily different (in order to be backwards compatible with IPv4 and IPv6 respectively), the ILNP architecture is identical. > What is here any better/different from LISP-2 ? > > I am confused. This sounds like Karl Valentin. > Though the left spotlight (IPv4) on a stage was down, > he tried to repair the right one (IPv6). Opinions vary on whether ILNPv6 will be widely deployed. Opinions vary on whether ILNPv4 will be widely deployed. ILNP is an architecture, that can be applied to a range of networking protocols. As an example, one could also apply the ILNP architecture to OSI CLNP. I've taken an action to more clearly describe how ILNP could be applied to IPv4 in my in-process editing of draft-rja-ilnp-intro. I hope that will clarify any confusion. Yours, Ran _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
