RE: Next question...

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> >2000 hosts: small potatoes. Allow me to rephrase my question: if you put
> >locators in the border router and they are unknown to the hosts, why
> >would it be harder? You would not have to communicate policy to the
> >hosts.

> How does this differ from the GSE proposal -- routing goop inserted
> at the edge routers?

There is no single concrete proposal at this time - maybe we'll raise
GSE from the dead. (But I don't think so.)

> Would these locators be considered part of the IP address by upper
> layers?  What happens when a communication that was within the site
> (no locators present) starts bouncing off of an edge router, due
> to dynamic routing changes?

It could very well be that there are always locators, either because the
source host must add them, or because multihoming benefits are also nice
tto have within a site, for instance by a host with two NICs. If the
border routers (or something close to the border routers) is responsible
for puting in the locators, then obviously there wouldn't be any
bouncing, other than the usual inconsistencies during routing
convergence.

> If a host needs to send its identifier and locator information to
> another host (as in the FTP PORT command), what does it send?

This is what the identifiers are for.