Hi Steven, On 07.07.2010 18:57, Steven Blake wrote >> Do you think ILNP could be reliable and robust if the Identifiers >> used by hosts are not in actual fact globally unique? If so, please >> give some examples. > > I think they need to be unique on a subnet. Being globally unique with > high probability makes uniqueness on a subnet easier to achieve.
I don't think that ILNP will work out of the box if two nodes have the same ID but are located in different subnets. The transport cannot distinguish whether it's a connection to itself or to the other remote system if it only operates on the ID. I think that the problem of conflicting IDs but different Locators is probably solvable, but I haven't seen any proposal for this so far. > Two hosts on the same link with the same MAC address can't communicate > using any protocol (IPv4, IPv6, ILNP, etc.). Fortunately, the > occurrence of duplicate MACs is extremely rare. > > Name one modern device that doesn't have a unique hardware ID that could > be used to form a global-scope EUI-64? Hmm, when considering the increasing use of virtual hosts, we may get in trouble here: virtual hosts probably don't have a unique hardware ID and usually generate a MAC address (or multiple ones in case of several virtual interfaces) at installation time. > Nothing breaks if two hosts on separate subnets share the same ID, even > if a separate host is communicating simultaneously with both of them. As long as you have the Locator in addition to the ID available, that's ok, but as far as I understood, the transport layer only uses I. So further demultiplexing will only work if the transport layer considers L:I together. Is this the case somewhere, e.g., when passing packets to the network layer? Regards, Roland _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
