Subject: RE: Missing DNS reqt? [was Re: (multi6) requirements draft comments]

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:14:58 -0800

>>> Michel Py wrote:
>>> This would be better answered by the chairs, but I
>>> personally think that multihoming for mobile IPv6 is
>>> out of scope here.
>> David Conrad wrote:
>> While I tend to agree that it is out of scope for the working group,
>> I personally see multi-homing, mobility, and renumbering as facets of
>> the same problem, namely the use of the end point identifier as the
>> routing locator.

I agree with this.

>> A solution that addresses (pun intended) the multi-homing
>> requirement may also address the mobility/renumbering problem.
> Alex Zinin wrote:
> Agree completely.

At this time, I disagree with that. It is indeed a good idea, what I called a slam dunk before, "THE" multihoming solution that solves all three of the aspects of multihoming which are big honkin' setup, home/soho and mobile. The reason I disagree  is that nobody has provided a clue in how to make it work so far. As several other people mentionned before, we have a collective responsibility in delivering something that will get IPv6 multihoming started, especially the part that is multihomed in IPv4 already. Pursuing that elusive universal solution is definitely interesting, but unless we see a draft that appears it can fly is IMHO out of scope here.

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:29:59 -0800

>>> Alex Zinin wrote:
>>> If you make EID (your PI address) "addressable" and expect it to be
>>> usable by the endpoint to tell its routing names, then EID needs to
>>> be routable
>> David Conrad wrote:
>> Not necessarily.  If you have some mechanism that maps between the EID
>> and the locator, you can route on the locator independently of the
>> routability of the EID.  Numerous mechanisms can be imagined which could
>> provide such a mapping service (DNS among them).
> Alex Zinin wrote:
> Generally yes. In fact, I would even say the routing system should
> know nothing about EIDs. This is not they case with Michel's proposal,
> though.

Actually, in the existing draft the routing system knows very little
about PI addresses (a /16 aggregate) except for a small number of routers
(The MHTP rendezvous points). I have in the works a version that will
include non-centrally assigned PI addresses such as Tony's draft. Even in
that situation, the vast majority of routers would know PI addresses only
by very broad aggregates, wich will effectively rid us of the routing goop
as we know it.

> Frankly, I'm having trouble imagining a DNS-based system used to
> provide the EID->location mapping dynamic enough and scalable at
> the same time to work for mobile nodes. That's another story though...

I have trouble imagining that one too. If it can be done, be it but I'd
like to see something. Let's keep in mind that the most immediate problem
at hand here is to avoid creating the same routing mess we have in v4.

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:16:03 -0800

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> The reason I kept centrally assigned PI addresses (1) is market
>> reality. Whatever we do, there will always be some people that will
>> get their prefix advertised into the DFZ. Instead of putting our eads
>> in the sand and pretend it will never happen, let's state that it
>> should be reserved to large multinational corporations and put a
>> very high price and hassle to get one of these and let's not make it
>> part of the DFZ but rather keep it separate (in the MHTP routing
table).

> Michael Richardson wrote:
> Why "corporations" here?
> Why not "organizations"?
> Certainly the "Mars Colony" would have a very clear reason to
> have something in the DFZ.

Agreed, "organizations" is much better.
Michel.