Re: identity persistence and comparison issues

El 26/06/2004, a las 3:58, Joe Touch escribió:

>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> ...
>>>>  The endpoints are the only place that can or should know about 
>>>> whether they change.
>> This is a purist view of the Internet we used to have when RFC 1958
>> was written... the current reality (RFC 2775) is that all these
>> problems call for soft state solutions, that can be garbage collected
>> as Marcelo says, and recreated if they are prematurely lost.
>
> Soft state elsewhere is an optimization that relies on hard state at 
> the endpoints for its recovery and recreation anyway. I.e., I don't 
> see yours and Marcelo's views as inconsistent.
>

One problem is that if the endpoints are incapable of obtaining the 
locators associated with a given identifier (as in HIP), it is 
impossible for the endpoints to recover the lost state, so perhaps 
having a mechanism for mapping id to locators is a must?

regards, marcelo



>> (The tragedy of NATs is that they can't do the second bit reliably,
>> and multi6 needs to avoid that problem.)
>>     Brian