Erik Nordmark wrote:
Jari Arkko wrote:I don't recall the exact discussion. FWIW, I think that both the exploration and other parts of the protocol have a similar situation with explicit listing of addresses vs. using indexes: the former creates a need to be very sure that we have synchronized lists at both ends in the correct way. IPv6 addresses are large, so there's a tradeoff in packet size vs. simplicity. At the moment my opinion is that we should err on the side of simplicity. In addition, the exploration, reachability, initialization and update parts have the added complication that if we ever want to use these components of the protocol for other purposes, then explicit addresses may be the only way, given v4 NATs, v4-v6 translation mappings, etc. may create different views about the addresses on the two peers.I guess I somehow lost the simplicity in that second paragraph ;-)
:-) The latter case is indeed not simple! The 2nd para was saying that IF someone wants to take on such an ambitious task, then that dictates the solution. If the ambition level is lower, then there are two truly alternative solutions, as noted in 1st para. Here the solution overall is simpler in any case. But there's still a difference, I think, compared between a solution that needs to be in sync vs. one that doesn't. Particularly if your set of addresses isn't fixed. Anyway, perhaps we should stop this philosophical debate and start talking about the specifics. Since we appear to agree that exploration doesn't use indexes, what does? LLU appears to not be able to use indexes, so is the question only about the update of preferences? --Jari