Re: Host Addressing Conventions [addr-conv 2.8]

[Paul Francis--formerly Tsuchiya <[e-mail]>]

>  
>  I would much rather have the router make this decision, based on---for
>  example---network utilization.  I think I sent an example of this
>  about two months ago, but I forget where.  The host really doesn't
>  have the proper information to make this choice.  As I noted in my
>  earlier message, I think that simple textual substitution of ``area''
>  for ``LAN'' will allow this to work, when combined with either some
>  form of Proxy ARP (ugh!) or an address-resolution mechanism that
>  looks like ESIS.
>  

Well, your argument is certainly valid.  In spite of all appearances
to the contrary (ie, the Pip header.....), I'm trying to keep Pip
as simple as possible.....

None-the-less, very little has to be changed to make this work,
mainly ES-IS.  Another advantage of doing this is the mobility
bit.  Even with LAN-based addressing, if a host is mobile but its
movements are constrained to an "Area", then it is nice to just
advertise it in routing locally and not give it new addresses.....

We are already implementing router discovery.  Maybe we should take
a look at it to see what needs to be done to make it full ESIS.....

Any comment from other people pro or con?

PX