>>> Erik Nordmark wrote: >>> FWIW, I think a multi6 solution with id/loc separation will >>> make the local addressing concerns go away.
If it provides something that is almost as good as PI. >> Tony Hain wrote: >> Any separation will require a mapping infrastructure to >> dynamically bind the values back together. > Keith Moore wrote: > agreed. Ditto. >> Such a mapping infrastructure >> will have all of the scaling concerns of DNS, > Nor is there any inherent reason that propagation of updates > has to be like DNS. Agree. > plus the constraint that its convergence times are extremely short. > There is no well-known technology for running a global multi-master, > cross trust boundary, database, with appropriate caching for scale, > and convergence times that are useful for application failover. It is not needed as long as the id/loc system does not need the full database to be fully replicated all over the world at all times. In other words, the requirements for that global multi-master, cross trust boundary database can be lessened by an id/loc system that could accommodate a partial picture as a bootstrap phase for its own mapping, and the convergence time can be brought by the id/loc protocol instead of database convergence. > What would you call BGP then? Granted, it's not exactly a database, > but it's certainly "multi-master" and "cross trust boundary" and it > at least attempts to converge within a timeframe in which apps can > fail over. I think that for practical purposes it's close enough of the definition of a database. Granted, it is not nearly as complex as OSPF but it could be called a database. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
