[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals
Wnc> The use of the term "Identifier" or "ID" sweeps an important
MWnc> issue under the rug in some cases: Is this a host ID or an
MWnc> interface ID?
or a 'stack id' or an 'endpoint id'? and what do these mean,
so, yes, we need to be precise and consistent in defining the term.
(Our -analysis- paper has an increasing list of terminology, with a
goal of capturing consensus definitions. Feedback is eagerly sought.)
MWnc> - Initial end-to-end connection set-up.
MWnc> - Referrals.
MWnc> - What happens when two nodes try to establish connections
MWnc> to each other "simultaneously"
MWnc> - How does the mechanism avoid connection hijacking?
These are really good points. For example, I had frankly been
avoiding trying to handle referrals, but any solution needs to attend
to this requirement explicitly.
MWnc> MAST Feedback:
MWnc> Uses a control protocol between the two end-nodes to
MWnc> exchange address information. The current proposal is
MWnc> two sparsely defined to allow a full analysis of its
And, of course, that is intentional. The intent is to distinguish
between basic approach, versus the essential details of a
specification that permits real implementation.
MWnc> In particular the document does not describe
MWnc> when MAST control messages would be sent, and how the
MWnc> nodes would know when to send them.
Right. Absolutely required -- eventually -- but not the rocket science
of designing an address pool maintenance mechanism.
MWnc> - How do the end-points know when they need to
MWnc> send SET operations to update the locators
MWnc> being used on the ends of this connection?
ignoring the heartbeat function that is suggested, why would not the
obvious "when something changes" rule suffice?
MWnc> - The draft suggests using IPsec to secure the
MWnc> control connection, but IPsec doesn't support
MWnc> changing end-point addresses.
As one or another of the other wedge proposals suggests, IPSec would
run above the Mast address pool mechanism. Hence, IPSec would only
see one "address".
MWnc> - The PROBE message sounds (to me) similar to
MWnc> the old proposal to use pings to detect dead
MWnc> gateways. What can we learn from the problems
MWnc> with that model that apply here?
I, too, would greatly like to hear feedback on this construct. I've
seen a couple of comments that raised no concerns about it, but none
that offered assurance it would work ok.
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>