Subject: RE: Next question...

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:53:25 -0800

Tony,

>>> Tony Li wrote:
>>> 2) Put the locators in the border router.  This frees
>>>    the host of the management burden, but makes it
>>>    somewhat harder for a site to provide site-wide
>>>    policy.
  
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Why would it be harder? For this purpose, I don't see a
>> difference between the choice of the locator to be used
>> and the choice of the site exit link. If the choice of the
>> locator is based on the AS-PATH, turns out to be the same.

> It's harder because as site administrator, I now need to
> communicate policy to each system in the enterprise. That
> can be daunting. Ever manage an enterprise with 2000 hosts
> in it?

2000 hosts: small potatoes. Allow me to rephrase my question: if you put
locators in the border router and they are unknown to the hosts, why
would it be harder? You would not have to communicate policy to the
hosts.

Michel.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:49:02 -0500

>would it be harder? You would not have to communicate policy to the

How does this differ from the GSE proposal -- routing goop inserted
at the edge routers?

Would these locators be considered part of the IP address by upper
layers?  What happens when a communication that was within the site
(no locators present) starts bouncing off of an edge router, due
to dynamic routing changes?

If a host needs to send its identifier and locator information to
another host (as in the FTP PORT command), what does it send?

Margaret

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 01:28:28 +0100 (CET)

> How does this differ from the GSE proposal -- routing goop inserted

There is no single concrete proposal at this time - maybe we'll raise
GSE from the dead. (But I don't think so.)

> to dynamic routing changes?

It could very well be that there are always locators, either because the
source host must add them, or because multihoming benefits are also nice
tto have within a site, for instance by a host with two NICs. If the
border routers (or something close to the border routers) is responsible
for puting in the locators, then obviously there wouldn't be any
bouncing, other than the usual inconsistencies during routing
convergence.

> another host (as in the FTP PORT command), what does it send?

This is what the identifiers are for.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 20:44:53 -0500

>This is what the identifiers are for.

So, the identifier would be sent, and there would be some way for
the receiving host to obtain a locator that matches the identifier
for return traffic?

Margaret