Subject: Re: [RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:21:25 +0100

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-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