Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

Fri Mar 16 04:04:04 UTC 2012

William Herrin wrote:

>> As LS requires less intelligence than DV, it converges faster.
> 
> I do believe that's the first time I've heard anybody suggest that a
> link state routing protocol requires "less intelligence" than a
> distance vector protocol.

I mean "intelligence as intermediate systems".

DV is a distributed computation by intelligent intermediate
systems, whereas, with LS, intermediate systems just flood
and computation is by each end.

>> Here is an exercise for you insisting on DNS, an intermediate
>> system.
>>
>> 	What if DNS servers, including root ones, are mobile?
> 
> DNS' basic bootstrapping issues don't change, nor do the solutions.
> 
> The resovlers find the roots via a set of static well-known layer 3
> address

You failed to deny MH know layer 3 address of its private HA.

It's waste of resource for MH have well known IP address of
root servers and domain names of its private DNS server and
security keys for dynamic update only to avoid to know IP
address of its private HA.

> For that matter, how do you solve the problem with your home agent
> approach? Is it even capable of having multiple home agents active for
> each node? How do you keep them in sync?

I actually designed and implemented such a system. Multiple
home agents each may have multiple addresses.

If some address of HA does not work, MH tries other addresses
of HA.

If some HA can not communicate with MH, CH may try to use other
HA.

There is nothing mobility specific. Mobile protocols are
modified just as other protocols are modified for multiple
addresses.

In practice, however, handling multiple addresses is not
very useful because selection of the best working address
is time consuming unless hosts have default free routing
tables.

						Masataka Ohta