[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: updating GSE for the new millennium

Brian,

There would only be a dependency if the servers providing the mapping lookup table were inside the site being mapped. This is probably something it would be best to avoid (as the doctor says, "don't do that"). Numbering the device that provides the mapping out of aggregation locator space would be a way to avoid this. Other ways exist.

Note that I am not against using some other mechanism than something like the DNS that provides the same "data pull" functionality. Nor am I against "data push". As I said, both have advantages and disadvantages. What is more interesting to me is whether or not the idea of implementing identity/locator separation by rewriting at the borders has legs.

Rgds,
-drc

On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 07:28 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

David Conrad wrote:
...
With regards to maintaining the mapping table, I see two generic ways
of doing this, either pushing data out like routing protocols or
pulling data in on demand like the DNS. Both are (obviously) tractable
and both have advantages and disadvantages. For obvious reasons I like
the DNS model (not necessarily the DNS itself), but I see this is a
side (albeit important) issue to the underlying architecture.
No, I don't think it's a side issue. DNS brings the risk of a big-time
circular dependency. In fact, Jon Postel thought about this one: he
contributed the following to RFC 1958:

   3.11 Circular dependencies must be avoided.

      For example, routing must not depend on look-ups in the Domain
      Name System (DNS), since the updating of DNS servers depends on
      successful routing.


   Brian