Re: [RRG] Tunnel fragmentation/reassembly for RRG map-and-encaps architectures

[Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>]

Hi Dino,

On Jan 27, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:

> > > > Can be very coarse prefix granularity.


Even worse.  ;-(


> > > If you move and you don't need session survivability you *can*  
> > > change both. And to make that movement compatible with existing  
> > > trends and deployed sites, you get a DHCP address (you as a host)  
> > > that will be used as an EID. You (as a host) don't have locators  
> > > per say, but the site you are at does (the IP addresses of the  
> > > ETRs).
> > >
> > > If you move and want session survivability, the EID must move  
> > > with the host (and the host stack has to retain the address when  
> > > the interface goes down, this is not common). This is the case  
> > > where the RLOCs change for a single EID (versus the EID-prefix  
> > > because the home site doesn't move, NEMO aside for a moment).
> >
> > Why do we need both options?
>
> It is not very clear an end-user needs TCP-connection survivability  
> across moves but would require sessions (moving watching, phone  
> calls, etc) to have survivability.



So I guess I"m not seeing anything that's TCP specific here.  If you  
can provide survivability for one transport, isn't it going to fall  
out for other transports?


> > > > > A node *can* roam and preserve its original IP address, but we  
> > > > > should
> > > > > not put that in the underlying routing.  It can be done in  
> > > > > connection
> > > > > signaling a la MIPv6.
> > > >
> > > > Fair, but unless we're willing to open the transports to  
> > > > actually add that to connection signaling, that's going to prove  
> > > > challenging.  So far, all of the feedback on host changes  
> > > > (transport layer or otherwise) is all negative.
> > >
> > > If the original IP address *stays* with the host, it continues to  
> > > use it. So there are no hot changes.
> >
> > Then how do you change the connection signaling?
>
> I don't understand the question.


So we're postulating that we accomplish some level of mobility by  
connection level signaling.  This is certainly doable.  However, you  
seem to claim that you can do this connection level signaling without  
involving host changes.  I'm trying to understand how this is  
possible.  Implementing MIPv6 does seem like a host change.

Tony



--
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