On 8/1/08 9:29 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum allegedly wrote:
Identifiers are unique within the context of a given
Locator; in many cases, Identifiers might happen to be
globally unique, but that is not a functional requirement
for this proposal.
This means that it won't be possible to learn the locators for a given
identifier through a lookup mechanism. So ILNP has many of the same
limitations of shim6: at least one working (!) locator must be present
in the DNS (or other address discovery mechanism).
Because of this and the use of dynamic DNS, basically, the FQDN is the
real identifier while the "I" is only a fixed-size handle that
conveniently fits in existing fields.
IMHO they serve different purposes. The FQDN is for locating it in the
first place. Once you have found it, then the "I" is good as a
persistent node identifier for mobility and multipath.
This mechanism doesn't address the situation where there is a failure,
but the failure isn't directly visible to the host (or router)
connecting to the link in question. Because of switches, failures on the
actual link are often hidden. There can also be a problem reaching part
of the internet through a link, so the fact that one destination is
reachable doesn't mean that another destination is reachable. So the
only way to know for sure if a destination is reachable is to have
specific information in the routing system, or send packets and see if
something comes back.
I suggest you emulate Milla Jovovich: hold a ticket to paradise in your
hand and say: "Multipath".
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119116/)
--
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
