Xu Xiaohu wrote: > > Binding transport associations to identifiers is a better choice.
In other words, using an ILNP host would be better than using a legacy host. Yes, indeed. I agree with that point. > However, > like the home addresses in Mobile IP, the ILNP identifiers should also be > routable in the Internet so as to allow the packets with destination being > identifier to be forwarded to some home-agent like device. You clearly missed the whole point: the identifier must be separated from the locator, otherwise you have mangled semantics and you end up back at LISP. This is a poor architecture. The whole point is to stop compounding that original error. > Then what's the > business model for deploying such home-agent like devices based on the fact > that the ILNP identifiers are flat. There are no home-agent like devices in ILNP. > In addition, since the ILNP identifiers > are not required to be globally unique, routing based on such identifiers in > Internet is almost impossible. Exactly. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
