Hi, Vince, Thank you for kind explanation.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Vince Fuller <v...@cisco.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:11:31AM +0900, Dae Young KIM wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> >> ? ?1. Why, in the first place, did people allow sites to inject PI >> >> addresses in DFZ? Why not simply reject PI in DFZ, limiting their use >> >> strictly inside a site? >> > >> > >> > Because that doesn't solve the multi-homed site problem. >> >> I'd believe/hope that there could have been solutions for multi-homing >> even with keeping this scenario, if people would have enough research >> before ever starting to distribute PI addresses. > > It's probably worth mentioning that in the "early days" of the Internet > (before CIDR came along in the early/mid-1990s), there really was no concept > of "PA" and "PI" prefix assignments; every new site connecting to the > Internet obtained a unique block of non-aggregatable address space and a > route for that new block was explicitly propagated into the global routing > system. The distinction between "PI" vs. "PA" and consequent idea of > "rejecting PI" is a relatively new development. > > One might argue (and some did argue) that solving the multihoming problem > through locator/identifier separation should have been a fundamental goal > of any "next-generation IP" proposal effort during the 90s. Unfortunately, > such arguments fell on deaf ears so that's why we're faced with retrofitting > a solution now. Not surprisingly, this implies backward-compatibility and > transition issues which tend to make an architecture or design a lot less > elegant than might be desired. > > --Vince > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
