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

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

>>> 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
>> David Conrad wrote:
>> Not necessarily.  If you have some mechanism that maps between the EID
>> and the locator, you can route on the locator independently of the
>> routability of the EID.  Numerous mechanisms can be imagined which could
>> provide such a mapping service (DNS among them).
> Alex Zinin wrote:
> Generally yes. In fact, I would even say the routing system should
> know nothing about EIDs. This is not they case with Michel's proposal,
> though.

Actually, in the existing draft the routing system knows very little
about PI addresses (a /16 aggregate) except for a small number of routers
(The MHTP rendezvous points). I have in the works a version that will
include non-centrally assigned PI addresses such as Tony's draft. Even in
that situation, the vast majority of routers would know PI addresses only
by very broad aggregates, wich will effectively rid us of the routing goop
as we know it.


> Frankly, I'm having trouble imagining a DNS-based system used to
> provide the EID->location mapping dynamic enough and scalable at
> the same time to work for mobile nodes. That's another story though...

I have trouble imagining that one too. If it can be done, be it but I'd
like to see something. Let's keep in mind that the most immediate problem
at hand here is to avoid creating the same routing mess we have in v4.

Michel.