Re: GSE IDs [Re: IETF multihoming powder: just add IPv6 and stir]

[David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>]

Jim,

On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 06:47  AM, Bound, Jim wrote:
> I am also not clear on rewrite of headers in transit is going to fly in
> some cases I can think of as use case and one example is the military
> tactical operations case, which for me is one area I work on and care
> about as one of my roles working with users.
I'd be interested in understanding these cases better.  From my 
perspective, what happens to my packet headers after they leave my 
machine is completely irrelevant as long as they get put back together 
into something that will pass the checksum on the destination host.

> I believe if we rewrite headers we need to swap them into new routing
> header type for IPv6 too, which will remove going to the DNS, LDAP, or
> MPLS database to get back to the end node.  I view this feature as
> keeping a history of location that is important.
Why?

> Probably also need to think about identity changing from say system
> crash, neighbor discovery DAD collision (after the fact of solicited
> node multicast which I have seen in the real world).
The appoach I've been thinking about does not touch the identity of the 
end system as determined via DAD or any other mechanism -- a packet has 
a site identity value in the top 48 bits of the destination address 
that maps into an aggregatable locator when the packet leaves the 
source site and gets remapped from the locator back into the site 
identity when it arrives at the destination site.

> I know I am going far to down in details sorry :--)
I like details when trying to figure out if a particular (arguably 
radical) approach will fly.

Rgds,
-drc