On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Tony Li wrote:
In order for ILNP to be backward compatible and interoperable with
legacy IPv6 hosts, it must use the exact same namespace.
The exact same, or a subset? Anyway..
I'm curious how backward compatibility is to work for applications
accepting connections on ILNP-capable hosts. In particular, how to
know whether to calculate the ULP checksum over the full L+I or just
the ILNP style I?
Looking further at the docs, it seems this relies on the Nonce Option
having stateful semantics to indicate "this remote IP knows ILNP".
How will this scale exactly? E.g. imagine servers communicating with
large numbers of clients.
What happens when IPs are re-used for hosts? Can you rely on Locator
Updates reaching those other hosts that are caching things.
It'd be interesting if someone did a comparison between Shim6 and
ILNP, as Shim6 spent a fair bit of effort on looking at issues
involving maintaining the locator<->ULP ID binding.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
A lie is an abomination unto the Lord and a very present help in time of
trouble.
-- Adlai Stevenson
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
