[161601] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Mar 20 17:26:41 2013
In-Reply-To: <41EADDFF-7012-45DE-93AC-6B92669E76EC@delong.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:26:09 -0400
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> However, a locator/id separation without map/encap is a
> desirable thing that could allow the routing system to
> scale better. Unfortunately, we failed to address this
> issue when designing IPv6. It will not get correctly solved
> without a revision to the header design. There is no will
> to change the packet header in the near future. We're
> having too much "fun" rolling out the current one.
Hi Owen,
Right problem, wrong part of the problem. As is, the IPv6 layer 3
headers have plenty of bits to do a dandy job in a loc/id separation
scheme: merely strip the ID function from the IP address and push it
up the stack to layer 4.
The crux of the problem, then, is that ID should be maintained by the
layer 4 protocol with a dynamic and changeable mapping to the layer 3
locator. We don't need a new IP. We need a new TCP.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
