Re: identity persistence and comparison issues
Joe Touch <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > > 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? That is one of my concerns... Joe > > regards, marcelo > > > >>> (The tragedy of NATs is that they can't do the second bit reliably, >>> and multi6 needs to avoid that problem.) >>> Brian
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 254 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFA4FVxE5f5cImnZrsRAvE1AJ9KOMQv6jGiyuO25OMmAwt0HXCvHgCfWcsY SFzBP2AReB6LINrxRAt+Zhk= =Mbpy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----