Hi, after studying the material from Dagstuhl and the discussion about locator/identifier on the RRG list I realized that I need to update my draft to be in-line with the new definition of locator and identifier. Therefore I changed the syntax in the draft to Area LOCator (ALOC) and Endpoint LOCator (ELOC) to describe a two level hierarchical addressing/routing structure.
I also tried to add an identifier to the framework - the reason is that there are some issues that could be improved, but can't be perfectly solved within the network layer. I believe the identifier should be decoupled from the network layer - in order to create a true separation. My conclusion is that a new protocol is needed between the network and transport layer, an "endpoint" or "host" layer is needed. When I was trying to find an identifier solution I stumbled over Host Identity Protocol and it seems that they have been doing an excellent work on an identifier solution. So I'll not describe HIP, instead I mention in my draft where and why HIP could fit in the framework. The hard part is the transition - why should service providers, enterprises and residential users migrate from a solution that is good enough and is still fully functional though it has been announced several times to be in serious trouble?? Offering only technical arguments (address depletion, routing scalability, etc) to the general public will not cause a wave of upgrades. A locator/identifier solution should offer something new - by using non-technical arguments - that could create a movement, a cause that will drive an upgrade. So I have added some "idealism" to my draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-frejborg-hipv4-02 I hope You can find some thoughts/ideas that can be useful in Your research work. -- patte _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
