[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Transport multihoming
Pekka Nikander wrote:
Very interesting, IMHO. Architecturally it looks fairly similar to HIP.
What would you consider to be the main differences?
Manuel Urueña Pascual wrote:
I agree with you, they are very similar, and IMHO any end-to-end MH
solution will look the same.
I've only read a paper by Francis Dupont so my knowledge about HIP is
far from deep, but I'll try:
Thanks!
...
I'm not really sure about this (please correct me), but HIP seems to
support just one address, that may be changed for another one with the
Readdress packet. Maybe that's a hard constrain, EPCP supports several
simultaneous addresses, even IPv4 and IPv6 altogether.
In draft-jokela-*-01.txt the HIP REA packet has been fixed to
support multi-homing, and per-interface mobility. However, the
RR check is still missing. We know that.
Maybe the main difference is my perception about the Identifier -
Locator problem. I think IP addresses are great identifiers: global
unique, fixed length... (see more properties in "Endpoints and Endpoint
Names", J. Noel Chiappa), and much more important, today's applications
employ them. That's why Primary Address is employed as an identifier
mapped to several locators (even to itself).
OK. I have then the same basic problem with this as with LIN6.
Both your proposal and LIN6 conceptually *overload* the same ID space.
That causes alias problems, and potentially "stealing" problems.
When the name spaces are completely different, the alias and "stealing"
problems do not exist. Thus, the security requirements are slightly
less strict. For example, CGA is not needed even in a "quick" mode,
since address "ownership" is not an issue, its who is using an address
right now, not who used it before or whose primary identifier it is.
--Pekka Nikander