Excerpts from Tony Li on Thu, Nov 27, 2008 01:11:31AM -0800:
> All of the Loc/ID split solutions are precisely adding another layer
> of indirection and thus it behooves us to truly understand what
> problems we are creating.
There are many components to an Internet system, and I think we have
to pick things apart some before we start talking about "adding
another layer of indirection". Let's look at MIP:
- There is no new level of indirection to mapping a domain name to a
locator.
- There is indirection in initial contact. That has a number of
potential advantages. My favorite is privacy. Another is
scalability of the mapping system during mobility.
- There is indirection for initial authentication for direct
communication.
- There is indirection for identifier re-authentication for session
continuity. (In neither case would I call this a "layer" of
indirection.)
HIP optionally adds other indirection and takes away most of the
above.
Does Trilogy multipath add indirection? It adds a need for _control_
of existing communication, certainly.
> Put another way: I see the strong appeal of a recursive architecture
> and I embrace that portion of the goal. However, all recursion
> starts with a base case, and it troubles me that the host cannot be
> an element of that base case. It implies that the base is flawed
> and has limitations in its functionality. Noel likes to say that
> the measure of an architecture is its ability to adapt to new
> requirements that are not yet forseen. What new requirements will
> arise in the base architecture where the fundamental lack of host
> participation will cripple us?
When you talk to me, you are shielded from seeing what goes on on a
DWDM link in Kansas. Are you flawed? :-)
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
