RE: (multi6) requirements draft comments

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

I agree with Michael on the three spaces here, and I will add that, since the current focus of this working group is "site multihoming", we should acknowledge mobile as part of the multihoming problem and decide if it is within the scope of the WG or not.

>> Michael Richardson wrote:
>> I believe that there are three solution spaces:
>>  1) large multi-national entreprise solutions.
>>     (if you have geographically relevant addressing, either via
>>     geo-PI, or via national governments doing all assignments. Perhaps
>>     not a reality in the "free markets", but possibly true for other
>>     less free areas, but also places like Antartica, the Moon, Mars...)
>>    
>>     This is more or less the BGP solution space.
>>   2) network layer solutions.
>>     mobile-IP like systems.
>>       Some people believe that this requires some kind of global PKI
>>       on the reverse name space. (note: PKI = PK infrastructure, which
>>       maybe PK+DNSSEC. It may not imply x509/pkix)
>>       opportunistic-encryption-like-tunnel systems.
>>       Given the above global PKI, you can assign PI addresses to everyone
>>       which are *not* routed. You can then advertise how to get to these
>>       places by putting stuff into DNS reverse map.
>>              (see draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic-03.txt)
>>       This is no different than the mobile-IP system, it just never tries
>>       to optomize anything.
>>      HIP-like systems- a variation of the above where IP addresess
>>              become meaningless, and hashes of public keys terminate
>>              connections.
>>   3) transport layer solutions.
>>     Just use SCTP for everything with PA addressing.
>> None of these solutions are even exclusive. I can see all three systems
>> occuring at the same time.