Re: Move forward

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

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:

> > 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)

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

No, these are type 3. Note that they fail to meet some basic multihoming
requirements, though, so they shouldn't be considered viable solutions
as-is, except for some specific application types such as the DNS.

> 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).

Agree. The overlap with mobility has been observed many times, but
little progress so far in this area.

> 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..

Obviously writing drafts hasn't helped to move things forward so far. So
I want to build some proof of concept stuff. That's plenty of short term
work.  :-)