Hi all, I have updated the RANGI draft to -03 version. Any comment is welcomed.
Hi Tony, would you please update the RANGI reference in the recommendation draft? Best wishes, Xiaohu > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:x...@huawei.com] > 发送时间: 2010年2月11日 16:14 > 收件人: 'Tony Li'; 'Lixia Zhang' > 抄送: 'RRG' > 主题: Rebuttal for RANGI//re: [rrg] Reminder > > Hi Tony and Lixia, > > The rebuttal for RANGI is as follows: > > The reason why the ID->Locator lookup is separated from the FQDN->ID lookup > is: 1) not all applications are tied to FQDNs, and 2) it seems not necessary > to require all devices to possess a FQDN of their own. Basically RANGI uses > DNS to realize the ID->Locator mapping system. If there are too many entries > to be maintained by the authoritative servers of a given Administrative Domain > (AD), Distribute Hash Table (DHT) technology can be used to make these > authoritative servers scale better, e.g., the mappings maintained by a given > AD will be distributed among a group of authoritative servers in a DHT > fashion. > As a result, the robustness feature of DHT is inherited naturally into the > ID->Locator mapping system. Meanwhile, there is no trust issue since each AD > authority runs its own DHT ring which maintains only its presidial mappings. > > For host mobility, if communicating entities are RANGI nodes, the mobile node > will notice the correspondence node of its new locator once its locator > changes > due to a mobility or re-homing event. Meanwhile, it should also update its > locator information in the ID->Locator mapping system timely by using the > Secure DNS Dynamic Update mechanism defined in [RFC3007]. In case of > simultaneous mobility, at least one of them has to resort to the ID->Locator > mapping system for resolving the correspondence node’s new locator so as to > continue their communication. If the correspondence node is a legacy host, > Transit Proxies, which play the similar function as the home-agents in Mobile > IP, will relay the packets between the communicating parties. > > RANGI uses proxies (e.g., Site Proxy and Transit Proxy) to deal with both > legacy > IPv6 and IPv4 sites. Since proxies function as RANGI hosts, they can handle > Locator Update Notification messages sent from remote RANGI hosts (or even > from > remote RANGI proxies) correctly. Hence there is no edge-to-edge aliveness > problem. Details will be specified in the latter version of RANGI-PROXY. > > The intention that RANGI uses IPv4-embeded IPv6 addresses as locators is to > reduce the total deployment cost of this new Internet architecture and to > avoid > renumbering the site internal routers when such a site changes ISPs. > > Best wishes, > Xiaohu > ________________________________________ > 发件人: rrg-boun...@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-boun...@irtf.org] 代表 Tony Li > 发送时间: 2010年2月11日 5:37 > 收件人: 'RRG' > 主题: Re: [rrg] Reminder > > > Hi folks, > > Remember this? I’ve seen one submission. Are folks working on things? > > Tony > > ---------------- > Hi all, > > We've had a bit of a schedule slip. We are still trying to hit a final > document > date of Mar. 8. That gives us just less than 7 weeks. The next deadline for > a rebuttal is Feb. 9. The deadline for counterpoints will then be Mar. 2. This > will give us a few days for final document prep. > > The word count limit for the rebuttal is 500 words. > > Regards, > Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
