RE: Next question...

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tony Li wrote:

> 1) Put the locators in the host, so that it can control which locator
>    it wants to use.  This allows the application to change locators if
>    its service is unacceptable.

> 2) Put the locators in the border router.  This frees the host of the
>    management burden, but makes it somewhat harder for a site to
>    provide site-wide policy.

> Note that either of these two alternatives could be enhanced by further
> communications.  Either the border can inform the host of site policy,
> or the host can inform the border of its local policy.  One could also
> do both, but this is starting to look like a dromedary.

I'd go for the dromedary.

Host/router isn't the essence of the question, since if we make this for
routers it can/will be easily implemented in hosts as well. If we feel
the possibility of offloading this to an external box is unneeded it
makes sense to take advantage of end-to-end state in the host. I think
being able to offload multiaddress processing to an external box is an
important feature, since that makes it possible to multihome unmodified
hosts.  If we want to go down this road we either ignore the hosts
end-to-end state or we create (optional) mechanisms for
multiaddress-aware hosts to be more involved in this within the policy
limits set by edge devices.  This part would be complex, but as it's
optional, that isn't too huge a problem.