[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> Isn't there an issue about needing to support N global locators (used
> for external communication) plus at least one local locator?
I may be not following, but my understanding is that Brian is proposing to
use a non routable address as identifier, so that it can be assigned
independently from the topology.
This location independent identifier would be have a global meaning, not
local, as i understand it.
The problem is that it cannot be used as a locator. IMHO you could store it
in the DNS, as long as you make sure that it is not used as a locator.
Perhaps a new RR could be defined to store this id.
> In the case of NOID, would it make sense to store the local
> locator together
> with the global locators in the (global) DNS?
> If you can't put them in the same lookup service, then you need some
> mechanism to (securely) discover locators that are not in the lookup
> service. (As an aside, if you have such a mechanism you could also use
> it to share care-of addresses with your peer when being mobile.)
> But I haven't found a way to do this with acceptable security in a scheme
> like NOID. I was hoping that the hash chains in WIMP could be
> used for this
> in NOID, but I think Jari convinced me that this has problems.
> It can be done securely when there is a new namespace as in HIP, SIM, etc.