Hi Toni, In "Re: [rrg] "Overloading" of Loc & ID functions – Another world is possible." you wrote:
> There is a way to separate identity from location and still have > hosts not care much about mapping and resolving. It is by > integrating resolution and session initiation. The first packet to > resolve an ID to locator has characteristics relevant to those of > the first one for session start. So the two can become one and of > course be handled by the routing system. but this makes no concrete sense to me. Locator / Identifier Separation means packets have separate fields for these, all the way from sending host to receiving host. Therefore, the hosts are doing different protocols from what they do today. Can you give a detailed account of how you propose to have hosts send and receive packets which have separate Identifiers and Locators for source and destination, without the delays inherent in looking up Locators? Then, for your concrete example, why do you argue that hosts should do this extra work, rather than new elements in the routing system such as ITRs, as in LISP, Ivip or (by some other name) IRON? Does your concrete proposal involve new application protocols, or can existing protocols work with IP addresses, with the stack somehow implementing whatever is required so the application can assume that an IP address is both an Identifier and Locator? This involves ensuring that a packet is never received by a host which does not have the Identity implied by the application's destination IP address. Does your proposal provide a facility similar to today's anycast and to round-robin DNS, where one DNS name resolves to multiple IP addresses, meaning multiple hosts or sets of anycast hosts? How would your proposal handle multihoming and mobility? Is there any RRG proposed architecture which matches or resembles your plan? If your plan doesn't alter host protocols, then I guess you must be advocating an entirely network based solution, such as LISP, Ivip or IRON. In these, the hosts have no separate notion of Locator and Identity in their communications - just as is the case today - so it is wrong to refer to this as Loc/ID Separation. Also, how would your analysis of the goals and proposed architectures differ from mine?: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
