Hi Ran, In fact, my question is much simple, that is: when a mobile node moves to a new subnet where another node occasionally uses the same identifer as the mobile node, should the mobile node renumber its identifier? if so, can the established session using that identifier survives after idenfifier renumbering? if not, how could the last-hop router distinguishes these two hosts when forwarding packets destined to one of them?
Could you please tell me in which I-D and which section the above question has been answered. Thus I can find the answer quickly. Thanks. Best regards, Xiaohu > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 RJ Atkinson > 发送时间: 2009年8月4日 21:13 > 收件人: IRTF Routing RG > 主题: Re: [rrg] Some concerns about ILNP > > > On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:50, Xu Xiaohu wrote: > > in the current CGA specification [RFC3972], the prefix is > used as one > > of the inputs for the hash algorithms. If the subnet prefix > (locator > > in ILNP) changed due to mobility or multihoming event, should the > > identifier be regenerated? If so, it seems conflict with > the statement > > of "constant identifier as node move " in your slides. > > It is not required that ALL Identifiers used by a node remain > constant. > It is helpful if at least one Identifier does remain > constant, at least for the duration of a given session. > > I'd really suggest studying the ILNP papers and I-Ds once again. > > > Due to the above reasons, in my RANGI proposal (called HRA > previously, > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-rangi-01.txt), the Administrative > > Domain > > (AD) ID replaces the routing prefix as one of the inputs for > > generating host identifiers. The AD ID is stable and will remain > > constant during mobility and multihoming. > > I haven't read your proposal, so I can't comment on it. > > > Then you must make some change to the session. e.g., > extending the 5 > > tuples of TCP session to 6 tuples. > > Your sentence above is not clear. > > What I can say is that ILNP doesn't break anything. ILNP is > not identical to IPv6, particularly in that they have > somewhat different architectures. > ILNP does provide a superset of IPv6 capabilities in an IPv6 > friendly way. > > > Since the sessions are bound to identifiers, wouldn't the > sessions be > > disrupted by changing the identifiers? > > No. ILNP already supports a node having more than one valid > Identifier at a given point in time. > > > Yes, but the rules do not say the IID must be unique globally. > > Hence, there > > is a possiblity that two nodes located in different subnet use the > > same IID (i.e., identifier in ILNP) > > That case was discussed at length yesterday. ILNP does not > have a problem with 2 nodes accidentally using the same Node > ID with different Locator values. > > > Not exactly. IPv6 uses the combination of routing prefix+IID as > > session identifier, and this idenfier ought to be unique globally. > > However, in ILNP, the IID part is used as identifier, which is not > > globally unique. > > PLEASE go re-read the ILNP document set. ILNP requires that > a Node ID is unique *within the context of a given Locator*. > ILNP does not require that a Node ID be globally unique. > > > However, we shouldn't exclude the possibility of using DNS > to realize > > the same goal. > > ILNP doesn't exclude that. > > PLEASE go re-read the ILNP document set. It is pretty clear > that you haven't read it recently, from your several points > of confusion. > > Yours, > > Ran > [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
