RE: [RRG] 2 billion IP cellphones in 2103 & mass adoption of IPv6 by currentIPv4 users

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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:03 AM
>To: Templin, Fred L
>Cc: Routing Research Group
>Subject: Re: [RRG] 2 billion IP cellphones in 2103 & mass 
>adoption of IPv6 by currentIPv4 users
>
>On 16 sep 2008, at 17:51, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
>>>> Call that box a LISP ITR, e.g., and the decision of where
>>>> the packet goes is based on resolving an IPv6 EID to an
>>>> IPv4 RLOC. That is a mapping function; not routing function.
>
>>> Wouldn't a rose by another name be just as unscalable?
>
>> Eh? AFAICT we have the global DNS as an example of scalable
>> mapping
>
>
>The DNS will tell you (after some delay) that www.google.com has  
>addresses 66.249.91.99, 66.249.91.103, 66.249.91.104 and  
>66.249.91.147, but not which of them are reachable and which aren't.
>
>So for single homed destinations you're in business (if we ignore the  
>caching / initial packets lost issues) because you don't need to know  
>whether those are reachable, but for multihomed destinations you  
>either need a protocol that pushes out dynamic information (like BGP)  
>or you need to run an additional protocol to determine reachability  
>(like shim6 REAP).

[LISP], Section 6.3 addresses Routing Locator Reachability.
My understanding of the final paragraph of that section is
that LISP ITRs might benefit by 'pinging' potential ETRs
periodically. The SEAL explicit probing mechanism can be
used for that purpose.

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