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

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

I would prefer that we avoided having a stateful mapping mechanism.
It's unnecessary and certainly more complication than we need.

I would also prefer that we not proclaim something to be GSE that
isn't, regardless of congruence or continuation of ideas.  GSE
is a specific idea and while it can certainly evolve, I think it's
a disservice to mo to re-use his name for something else 
without his permission.

Tony


|    -----Original Message-----
|    From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] 
|    Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 3:33 AM
|    To: Brian E Carpenter
|    Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
|    Subject: Re: GSE IDs [Re: IETF multihoming powder: just 
|    add IPv6 and stir]
|    
|    
|    On donderdag, mei 8, 2003, at 11:50 Europe/Amsterdam, 
|    Brian E Carpenter 
|    wrote:
|    
|    >>> and it involves stateful distribution of mapping 
|    information. A very
|    >>> different beast from GSE, and it sets off my 
|    stateful=bad alarm.
|    
|    >> Actually this wouldn't be a problem at all since we 
|    have to keep this
|    >> exact same state anyway in order to map the other way around for
|    >> sending packets back.
|    
|    > Again, not in GSE as I understand it.
|    
|    I don't think it's a coincidence that there hasn't been 
|    any progress 
|    with GSE for five years or so. In theory, GSE can work without a 
|    mapping mechanism, but this opens the door to security 
|    problems. So in 
|    practice we need to keep state to know whether there is a 
|    valid locator 
|    <-> identifier mapping to avoid trivial identity theft. And if we 
|    accept that, we may as well remove the whole globally 
|    unique lower 64 
|    bit thing as it just breaks too much stuff without any 
|    real benefits at 
|    this point.
|    
|    Aside from that, not having a mapping mechanism makes 
|    failover very 
|    difficult: the only way that still works is if the border 
|    router at the 
|    source sees the problem. This works for last mile 
|    problems, but not for 
|    routing problems further upstream. I know others have different 
|    experiences, but for me routing problems are the number 
|    one cause of 
|    outages.
|    
|    Is there anyone who wants to stick with GSE without a 
|    mapping mechanism?
|    
|    
|