Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

I do not see the difficulty.  We already have the IPv6 mechanisms to 
advertise the prefixes.  And we have the IPv6 mechanisms for hosts to 
combne the prefixes with teir IDs.
We also have the dynamic DNS mechanisms (with security) needed to 
advertise the results.

With ILP, these combinations can be changed during sessions, and traffic 
can change paths during sessions without impact.
With the current architecture, sessions can not change paths, and 
changes to the connectivity are hard to discover or utilize.

Thee are other multi-homing problems that are not solved.  Working out 
how to manage prefix assignments in an enterprise when external 
assignments change is one example of such issues (LISP takes a different 
tack, and thus the costs and benefits are different.)

Yours,
Joel

On 11/12/2012 6:59 PM, Dae Young KIM wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
> <mailto:jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>> wrote:
>
>          > From: Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.kr <mailto:dykim@cnu.kr>>
>
>          > This multiplicity of the locators, although the ID is single
>     ... also
>          > affects DNS entries.
>
>     Not necessarily. If the DNS only contains IDs (which is the way some
>     designs
>     work), then there no DNS/locator issues.
>
>
> The description on servers in Sec. 4.1 of ILNP, p. 20, implies that.
>
> The DNS concern is, however, a secondary thing. That a host has to be
> associated with multiple PA locators inserted by multiple ISPs at ILNP
> multi-homing is the real problem I'm pointing to. This is exactly the
> same situation you might require with the current IP.
>
> Where's the improvement on multi-homing? If there's no such improvement,
> have we solve the table explosion problem?
>
> --
> DY
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>