RE: PI/metro/geo [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development]

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

|   You raise a point here that I think gets lost in the 
|   mapping proposals. 
|   'As far as your own hosts, the DNS and remote hosts are 
|   concerned, hosts
|   in your network have a single address.' 
|   If the upper 48 bits are constant in DNS, but continually 
|   changing in
|   the routing system, there needs to be a way to pass the 
|   possible set of
|   topologically appropriate replacement values between the 
|   CPE routers.
|   Since this protocol would inherently have to be run between
|   organizations that have no trust relationship, how that be 
|   deployable?


You have no trust relationship today with anyone that provides
you a locator.  [BTW, for multihomed sites, I would expect that
the locators would be advertised in DNS as well. Mobile hosts
would require a different mechanism.]

Hosts that frequently need to change their locator would need
to pass the new locator back to the CN.  This could be done
reasonably as part of the transport protocol.

Tony