Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:09:19 -0700

On Aug 14, 2008, Tony Li wrote:

> To clarify the issue at hand: we're interested in renumbering of end- 
> user
> sites and changes in the locator namespace.

To answer the question Tony has raised, it may be useful to get some
common ground on:

(1) What are the renumbering tasks, and which cause most problems?

(2) Which renumbering tasks could be eliminated?

(3) How much more acceptable would renumbering become if some of the
     renumbering tasks were eliminated?

Let me take a first step in answering questions (1) and (2).  I am
sure that many on this list will know something to add.

Regarding question (1):  I would assume that, from the following list
of renumbering tasks, ...

(a) hardcoded IP addresses in applications
(b) IP addresses of hosts
(c) IP addresses of routers
(d) IP addresses in filter devices, such as firewalls, intrusion
     detection systems
(e) certificates issued for IP addresses

     [This list is certainly incomplete.  Don't hesitate to add.]

... item (a) potentially causes most problems due to the lack of a
single method that could either identify or fix affected applications.

Also problematic is (d):  Filtering devices may have to be modified
even if a *remote* edge network renumbers since they may be configured
with remote IP addresses (as Iljitsch pointed out earlier).

Regarding question (2):  An example of a class of solutions that would
eliminate renumbering tasks (a) and (e) is host-based ID/locator split
solutions, such as HIP.

Item (d) from the above list may be hardest to eliminate, because
filtering devices have to identify hosts or flows using locators.
Changing this doesn't seem to be feasible.

- Christian

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] 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