RE: [RRG] Re: [RAM] Different approaches for different protocols

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

> > I have to disagree.  You obviously want identifiers in DNS replies,

> > regardless of the solution.  If you could also return locators, that

> > cuts down on your startup time, as you effectively get the id- 
> > >locator lookup for free.  Yes, doing locator updates within the  
> > existing DNS is an issue... TBD.
> 
> Well, if you just publish the set of possibly reachable locators and  
> then detect reachability through other means than the DNS this  
> wouldn't be a problem. However, there is another problem: LISP &  
> family do the id->loc mapping in a middlebox, when the DNS name used  
> to come up with the id that's in the packet header is a distant  
> memory. Even when doing this in the host itself the FQDN may not be  
> available when the time comes to do the mapping.

When the ITR is co-located with the DNS resolver, this
isn't so much of a problem (i.e., the RLOC and EID
lookups could occur when the FQDN is still available).

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