[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] RE: [RAM] dns discover in map-and-encaps schemes
Hi Lixia, and thanks for the guidance on this. I certainly agree
with minimizing the clutter, and am happy to move to just one list.
I don't have a preference as to which one, so I defer to your
judgement and will use just one list from now on.
But, a procedural question: how can we decide which is the
appropriate list on a case-per-case basis? (I think we still
have all three of the ram, rrg, and architecture-discuss lists
to choose from?)
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lixia Zhang [mailto:lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:30 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Dino Farinacci; rrg; ram@iab.org
> Subject: Re: [RRG] RE: [RAM] dns discover in map-and-encaps schemes
>
> this is not a reply to your msg but a question of where you'd
> like to
> direct the discussion to: I am very sure I'm not the only on both
> lists and found double-copies on every msg confusing (given how far
> I'm behind, this does not help)
>
> I strongly discourage any future posts going to both ram and rrg,
> given the potential high overlap in membership between the two. One
> can easily send a note to list 1 telling others that he has
> posted an
> important thing to list 2.
>
> Fred you started this double-list posting, which list would you like
> to continue on?
> Personally it seems to me mostly belonging to RAM, though you may
> feel otherwise.
>
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 5:28 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:dino@cisco.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:29 AM
> >> To: Templin, Fred L
> >> Cc: rrg; ram@iab.org
> >> Subject: Re: [RAM] dns discover in map-and-encaps schemes
> >>
> >>>> What happens when I type "ping <global-address>" on the source?
> >>>
> >>> Not quite certain what you mean; do you mean ping the source IP
> >>> address from the destination IP address after the source has done
> >>> the DNS mapping for the destination. The intent is the
> egress tunnel
> >>> router nearest the destination will have cached the source IP to
> >>> locator mapping and so the ping will succeed.
> >>
> >> No, it was a simple statement about what if a host uses
> addresses to
> >> send packets and not DNS names.
> >>
> >>>> What if DNS is down, do I lose global connectivity?
> >>>
> >>> What happens if the DNS is down in today's Internet? You can
> >>
> >> I can still "[ping,traceroute] <global-address>". I can still send
> >> packets, I can still type in "http://192.168.0.1/"; in my browser.
> >
> > Everything that works today for IPv4 would work tomorrow for IPvLX
> > for IPvLX nodes that are dual-stacked, which I anticipate would be
> > the normal case. The only nodes that would not be able to do a ping
> > to a global address when the DNS is down would be IPv6-only nodes,
> > but IMHO those would only occur on very small devices on the very
> > extreme edges of the network.
> >
> >>> ping any global IPv4 address and connect to any global IPv4
> >>> services by specifying an IP address instead of a FQDN, and
> >>> the very same will be true for this scheme. The only thing
> >>
> >> How do you get locators when the DNS is down?
> >
> > When the DNS is down, you will still be able to use IPv4 in the
> > same way we use IPv4 in the Internet today. The draft doesn't
> > explicity say this, but the preferred access method is IPv4,
> > with IPv6 used only for nodes that do not have a FQDN and IPv4
> > addresses in the global DNS. IPvLX augments the current
> > architecture, it does not compromise it.
> >
> >>> you *won't* be able to do is ping IPv6 addresses and connect
> >>> to IPv6 services that are deeply embedded in distant sites,
> >>
> >> A problem.
> >
> > See above; the situation is no different than for the Internet
> > today. Again, IPvLX augments the existing architecture; it does
> > not compromise it.
> >
> >>>> What if network administrators are totally against making
> >> routers DNS
> >>>> servers?
> >>>
> >>> I want that the function be moved closer to the end devices, and
> >>> not in core routers - but, see more below:
> >>
> >> That still won't make network administrators happier.
> >
> > Howso? Why should the network administrator care if the end
> > node is simply behaving as an ordinary DNS resolver from an
> > outward appearance. That the end node is behaving as a
> > two-faced DNS server on behalf of its downstream-attached
> > devices (and internal virtual hosts) is no business of the
> > network administrator's.
> >
> > Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> > --
> > to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
> > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
>
>
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg