> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Tony Li [mailto:tony...@tony.li] > 发送时间: 2010年1月27日 14:00 > 收件人: Xu Xiaohu > 抄送: 'RRG' > 主题: Re: [rrg] A concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > Xu Xiaohu wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > In my attempt to answer Lixia’s question why using FQDN for ID and Locator > lookup is a problem (see the following email), I occasionally found a doubt > about ILNP. That is : how a legacy host continues the communication to an > ILNP-aware host once the latter changes its locator due to mobility or re-homing > event. Note that the legacy host is not that intelligent so as to resort the > DNS to get the new locator of the ILNP-aware host. > > > A legacy host treats all ILNP hosts as simply other legacy hosts. Thus, > an ILNP host that changes its locator and wishes to correspond with > other legacy hosts must also change its IPv6 address (and AAAA DNS record).
Hi Tony, However, when the ILNP host changes its locator during communicating with a legacy host, even it updates its AAAA record in the DNS, the legacy host will not resort to the DNS to get its new IPv6 address immediately after the locator change. As a result, the already established session between them will be broken. That's to say, ILNP can not support such a scenario where a legacy host communicates to a mobile host (ILNP host). Note that such a scenario is supported in Mobile IP. By the way, even if the above ILNP host is not a mobile host, but a fixed host located in a multi-homed site network, the established session will also be broken when the site is re-homed to another ISP. The basic reason is the transport association is bound to one of the ILNP host's locators, rather than its identifier. Xiaohu _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
