In einer eMail vom 25.07.2010 22:28:44 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]:
Heiner, On Sunday 25 July 2010 at 20:28:20 [email protected] sent: > Creating/maintaining is a matter of effort, and we may take advantage of > what exists, even if things are imperfect (MAC, IP). What about Dynamic DNS as an universal ID uniqueness system? Besides existance, DDNS is no less supported than MAC addressing. I got well surpised by Javier who redescribed the DDNS solution. The Dynamic DNS perfectly fits the following design goals at once: 3.3. Scalable support for multi-homing 3.4. Scalable support for mobility 3.6. Decoupling location and identification 3.7. First-class elements 3.10. Deployability My interest (as well as my expertise) is in routing, i.e. in enabling packet forwarding to the right egress-DFZ-router without any route collection, without any prefix building, and especially without looking at the dest.IP address of the packet, based on a topology which is strict in the near and loose and looser the more remote network parts are. Beyond that egress-DFZ-router forwarding should continue as of today, i.e. the (unchanged) remaining routers towards the destination should do their OSPF stuff and classical IPv4-forwarding. For the long-term, my TARA-solution is able to shift this end-point of TARA-forwarding closer to the egress router and even such that the egress router itself becomes the TARA-forwarding endpoint eventually. Even more: The endpoint of TARA-forwarding could even become the destination host. I can only invite everyone to follow this long and promising road of advanced routing technology. Employing the term "loc/id-split", TARA-forwarding is done due to some prepended TARA-Locator (which means the "loc" ) and classical forwarding thereafter is done due to the current IPv4, IPv6, and-or others (which means the "id"). Altogether classical IP-forwarding is split into TARA-forwarding followed by classical IP forwarding. Similar to LISP : There, classical IP-forwarding is split into LISP-forwarding followed by classical IP forwarding. I have no idea how ILNP can do the second part of the route in this way ( so I wonder why Fred Baker prefers ILNP rather than LISP :-( Therefore, it is not my "business" to look for any new "identifer" . And also: My goal is to improve routing, including mobile routing. Toni, you only see (at the moment) this identifier uniqueness. What whould you do if "your" globally unique identifier can't be seen? I would be able to start a broadcast search - well scoped of course. But you in spite of your unique identifer are lost !!! Heiner I suggest we believe in perfection, for whichever we believe is true. Toni _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
