Re: Move forward

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 1. "No changes" routing-based approaches, ranging from simple (ignore
>    the scalability problem for now) to complex (geo aggregation).
> 
> 2. Weak identifier/locator separation: the identifier is an address
>    usable for routing that is replaced/hidden in transit in some way,
>    typically by a router or middlebox (MHAP, but also
>    tunneling/redirection mechanisms)
> 
> 3. Strong identifier/locator separation: the identifer isn't an address
>    usable for routing, so the end host must implement the solution
>    (basic multiaddressing as we know it today, SCTP, HIP)
> 
> 4. Mobility-based approaches (although this could be classified under 2.)

This is ignoring the short-term solutions with multiple addresses.

I'm not sure what you refer to with mobility based approaches.  It seems
to me that such do not exist (which would help with multihoming, that is).

I'll be probably submitting a draft on my "big picture" in April or so.  

At the moment it looks like we don't have all that much work to do in the
short term..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings