RE: Missing DNS reqt? [was Re: (multi6) requirements draft comments]

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Alex,

>> Michel Py Wrote:
>> It does not need to be a centralized directory. If the endpoint "name"
>> is addressable (I do not like "name" in this context as it implies
>> DNS but I will keep it for consitency) the endpoint itself can answer
>> queries about its own locations <== (more than one).
>> In the concept I propose, what you call name is a PI address, and
>> its locations are several PA addresses. The key is to make the name
>> itself addressable.
> Alex Zinin wrote:
> If you make EID (your PI address) "addressable" and expect it to be
> usable by the endpoint to tell its routing names, then EID needs to
> be routable (and assumably under any possible connectivity scenarios),

Yes. If it is addressable it needs to be routable and routed. And, in the
case of Tony's geo PI, it also needs to be aggregated.


> hence we seem to end up with the same problem---the routing system
> has to handle non-connectivity-based addresses.

I am not sure I fully understand what you mean here. I would not call
a PI address a non-connecticity-based address.


> My understanding is that separating routing names from EIDs makes
> sense if the routing system does not need to know anything about EIDs.

Although I agree, I think that this topic would be better
addressed by looking at the specifics of each solution.
For my model, I think that it would be appropriate to say:
resolve(name) = EID = PI address
locations = PA addresses


> Regarding the question of whether EID->routing name mapping
> should be done through DNS together with DN->EID mapping or
> through a separate packet exchange.

This is why it is a good idea for each solution to precisely
describe the impact it has on DNS, so we can evaluate if it
could possibly fly with DNS or needs son-of-DNS.


> I think it is important
> to keep in mind node mobility, where the node's routing name
> changes dynamically. The relatively static nature of [at least]
> today DNS does not converge well with possible dynamics of the
> routing name.

That is quite another story. The title of this working group is:
"Site Multihoming in IPv6" which implies that a site is not moving
too often. This would be better answered by the chairs, but I
personally think that multihoming for mobile IPv6 is out of scope
here. Not that we don't like it, but we have a big enough problem.

Michel.