Re: Move forward

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum 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. 

Well, not by the classification: there is no strong identifier/locator
separation in e.g. host-centric multihoming approach.

> 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.

Which realistic solutions _do_ meet those requirements?

Right..
 
> > 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.

Mobility could be useful, IMO, if and only if you could secure a construct
like Binding Update with like, IPsec.  And this is a non-starter at the
moment.

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