RE: Next question...

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

Michel,


|   > 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.


It's harder because as site administrator, I now need to communicate
policy to each system in the enterprise.  That can be daunting.
Ever manage an enterprise with 2000 hosts in it?


|   > 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. 


More like a nightmare.  ;-)


Tony