> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Tony Li [mailto:tony...@tony.li] > 发送时间: 2010年1月28日 15:28 > 收件人: Xu Xiaohu > 抄送: 'RRG' > 主题: Re: [rrg] A concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > Xu Xiaohu wrote: > > > > > 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). > > > In fact, ILNP isn't going to do much for a legacy host. Period. What > was your point?
OK, I got it. My point is the above scenario should be considered in a non- clean-slate architecture. > > Note that such a > > scenario is supported in Mobile IP. > > > So? Use Mobile IP already then. Then each ILNP+ host should be assigned a globally unique home address just for communication with legacy hosts ;) > > 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. > > > See paragraph 1. > > It's a legacy host. It behaves like IPv6. No better, no worse. Not better, but worse in some cases (e.g., the above scenario), IMHO. Xiaohu > Upgrade already. ;-) > > Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
