Hi Tony, Am 08.07.2010 17:46, schrieb Tony Li: >> I don't think that ILNP will work out of the box if two nodes have >> the same ID but are located in different subnets. The transport >> cannot distinguish whether it's a connection to itself or to the >> other remote system if it only operates on the ID. I think that the >> problem of conflicting IDs but different Locators is probably >> solvable, but I haven't seen any proposal for this so far. > > > As I just mentioned, this is easy if they are locally generated IDs. > There are specific bit patterns that indicate a locally generated ID > and the transport will need to demux on the full address in this > case. > > As with any locally generated ID, mobility to arbitrary other > locators cannot be supported.
Ok, thanks for clarification. >> Hmm, when considering the increasing use of virtual hosts, we may >> get in trouble here: virtual hosts probably don't have a unique >> hardware ID and usually generate a MAC address (or multiple ones in >> case of several virtual interfaces) at installation time. > > > If we take the example of VMware, a virtual host will end up with a > pseudo-random address in 00:0c:29, and can create collisions with > other VMware installations, in which case you have to set the MAC > address locally. Pretty clearly, folks are abusing basic Ethernet > and ILNP cannot fix that. Yes, but my point was that we probably cannot assume that every "device" in the Internet has a unique hardware ID, because we may have many virtual hosts in the future. How "smart" individual vendor's solutions are is IHMO out of scope here. > Using a locally generated MAC would be the right approach here. > > >> As long as you have the Locator in addition to the ID available, >> that's ok, but as far as I understood, the transport layer only >> uses I. So further demultiplexing will only work if the transport >> layer considers L:I together. Is this the case somewhere, e.g., >> when passing packets to the network layer? > > > The transport will need to use L:I for locally unique IDs. Ok. Moreover, I think that using the IPv6 privacy extensions in combination with ILNP is actually quite useful, i.e., the ID is fine for servers, but for end-users it's probably a good idea to have several IDs an change them from time to time. Roland _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
