[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt
- To: rrg Group <rrg@psg.com>
- Subject: [RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt
- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:29:25 +0100
Reading the ILNP intro draft, I was already trying to remember the
locations/identities [*] of the most damning evaluations of GSE/8+8
when this caught my eye:
Identifiers are unique within the context of a given
Locator; in many cases, Identifiers might happen to be
globally unique, but that is not a functional requirement
for this proposal.
This means that it won't be possible to learn the locators for a given
identifier through a lookup mechanism. So ILNP has many of the same
limitations of shim6: at least one working (!) locator must be present
in the DNS (or other address discovery mechanism).
Because of this and the use of dynamic DNS, basically, the FQDN is the
real identifier while the "I" is only a fixed-size handle that
conveniently fits in existing fields.
It also shares with shim6 the limitation that locators are exposed all
the way to the hosts, so it's highly likely that someone will filter
on them so it doesn't solve or avoid the renumbering problem.
When one upstream connection
fails, the node sends an ICMP Locator Update message to each
existing correspondent node to remove the no-longer-valid
Locator from the set of valid Locators.
This mechanism doesn't address the situation where there is a failure,
but the failure isn't directly visible to the host (or router)
connecting to the link in question. Because of switches, failures on
the actual link are often hidden. There can also be a problem reaching
part of the internet through a link, so the fact that one destination
is reachable doesn't mean that another destination is reachable. So
the only way to know for sure if a destination is reachable is to have
specific information in the routing system, or send packets and see if
something comes back.
Obviously sending ICMP messages over the failed link doesn't work, and
using another link creates security issues.
Although it doesn't look that way on the surface, this is fairly
similar to shim6 in what it does, except that shim6 is much more
complete and backward compatible.
[*] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99nov/I-D/draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-05.txt
--
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