IPv4 still has the node identifier v.s. routing locater conflation problem
for addresses, however.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
To: "Geoff Huston" <gih@telstra.net>; <saad@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:05 PM
Subject: RE: [saad] About saad
> Marcelo / Geoff,
>
> > marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> > I don't think that the discussion should be focused on IPv6
> > only a priori.
>
> > Geoff Huston wrote:
> > For me this area of consideration is somewhat orthogonal to
> > the V4 / V6 considerations.
>
> That's fine by me, but then we do have some work with the about text:
>
> > We have specified an Internet that works, at the network
> > layer, using relatively stable but not permanent identifiers
> > for connection endpoints, which are allocated and
> > administered using a topology dependent model, implying a
> > service provider dependent model
>
> For IPv4 this is untrue, as PI addresses are not allocated using a
> topology dependent model and do not imply a server provider dependant
> model.
>
>
> > But we run into problems (the architecture doesn't quite
> > fit when we try to address some scenarios encountered in
> > real life: multihoming
>
> Untrue for IPv4. The issue with IPv4 multihoming is a scalability issue:
> the growth of the routing table (resulting in part from the announcement
> of multihomed blocks) induces instability, which is not good. Possibly,
> a protocol other than BGP4+ would have a lot less of a scalability
> issue, so I don't consider this an architecture issue.
>
>
> > assembling a local network without necessarily having to contact
> > an ISP to obtain address space(e.g.,home net)
>
> Not a problem with IPv4: we have RFC1918.
>
>
> > Some proposed solutions are challenged in terms of:
> > providing referential integrity - how is referential
> > integrity maintained when identifiers are not globally
> > unique or are overloaded?
>
> The answer to this is simple: either make the identifiers globally
> unique, or manage that ambiguous identifiers never collide (or make the
> collision risk extremely slow).
>
>
> > choosing between different identifiers for an object
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > which has different "reachability" and the reachability
> > is context-dependent
>
> Shouldn't "identifiers" above be "locators"? I vaguely assume that an
> object can have multiple locators but should have only one identifier.
>
> Michel.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Saad mailing list
> Saad@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saad
>
>
_______________________________________________
Saad mailing list
Saad@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saad
