Re: new draft

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

On zondag, mei 11, 2003, at 19:02 Europe/Amsterdam, Bound, Jim wrote:

> On first read architecturally I believe where you going will work.  
> Note
> A6 records are dead and deprecated in IETF and the BIND DNS code base
> will get rid of them in the near future and remove them from 
> exisitence.
> Very painful to us who use BIND regarding the cost fyi.  So that means
> lets be very very careful with adding new DNS A* records here folks the
> BIND community will be very gun-shy of putting new record types in for
> IPv6 records regarding implementation.
I understand. But I see no reasonable alternative. Creating something 
that does exactly this job but isn't DNS would be inefficient, to say 
the least. If there is another way to infer the locators from an 
identifier that doesn't involve a huge distributed database, I'd like 
to hear about it as it would solve some additional stuff.

> You also traded off complexity in the host instead of using some IPv6
> extensions to assist with the effort architecturally.  I am still not
> convinced that trade off is completely necessary and some of this can 
> be
> reduced with DST Options and a New Extension Header to support
> identification and processing for mutli6.  But that is an engineering
> discussion if we believe this architecture is worth discussion.  I
> believe it is.
If we go down the option path we quickly end up in mobility teritory. 
This may or may not be a bad thing.

Since options are easily forged, they must be protected 
cryptographically. Maybe we should see if there is any synergy to be 
found by combining all of this with IPsec.

> Nice job,
Thanks.

Iljitsch