RE: Next question...

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

Tony,

> Tony Li wrote:
> 1) Put the locators in the host, so that it can control
>    which locator it wants to use.  This allows the
>    application to change locators if its service is
>    unacceptable.
> 2) Put the locators in the border router.  This frees
>    the host of the management burden, but makes it
>    somewhat harder for a site to provide site-wide
>    policy.

Why would it be harder? For this purpose, I don't see a difference
between the choice of the locator to be used and the choice of the site
exit link. If the choice of the locator is based on the AS-PATH, turns
out to be the same.


> Note that either of these two alternatives could be
> enhanced by further communications.  Either the border
> can inform the host of site policy, or the host can
> inform the border of its local policy.  One could also
> do both, but this is starting to look like a dromedary.

Full-duplex communications between all hosts and the routing system
about policy is probably a utopia. However, some DFZ hosts feeding the
routing system clues about which destination are crappy over which
locators has good value. Some people will scream about hosts making
routing decisions, but there are cases where this could be beneficial as
apps react differently from one another.


> Does that about cover the high points?

Makes sense to me.

Michel.