On Jan 27, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Can be very coarse prefix granularity.
Even worse. ;-(
No not worse. Good when it can be coarse. And when it can't because of
locator-set differences, then a site's allocation because more specific.
If you move and you don't need session survivability you *can*
change both. And to make that movement compatible with existing
trends and deployed sites, you get a DHCP address (you as a host)
that will be used as an EID. You (as a host) don't have locators
per say, but the site you are at does (the IP addresses of the
ETRs).
If you move and want session survivability, the EID must move
with the host (and the host stack has to retain the address when
the interface goes down, this is not common). This is the case
where the RLOCs change for a single EID (versus the EID-prefix
because the home site doesn't move, NEMO aside for a moment).
Why do we need both options?
It is not very clear an end-user needs TCP-connection survivability
across moves but would require sessions (moving watching, phone
calls, etc) to have survivability.
So I guess I"m not seeing anything that's TCP specific here. If you
can provide survivability for one transport, isn't it going to fall
out for other transports?
If you do it at the session layer, then you don't care what transport
you use so you don't care if the transport can support it.
A node *can* roam and preserve its original IP address, but we
should
not put that in the underlying routing. It can be done in
connection
signaling a la MIPv6.
Fair, but unless we're willing to open the transports to
actually add that to connection signaling, that's going to prove
challenging. So far, all of the feedback on host changes
(transport layer or otherwise) is all negative.
If the original IP address *stays* with the host, it continues to
use it. So there are no hot changes.
Then how do you change the connection signaling?
I don't understand the question.
So we're postulating that we accomplish some level of mobility by
connection level signaling. This is certainly doable. However, you
seem to claim that you can do this connection level signaling
without involving host changes. I'm trying to understand how this
is possible. Implementing MIPv6 does seem like a host change.
I think you can do it with application changes and not protocol stack
changes.
Dino
--
to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
