RE: Identifier/locator recap

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

Iljitsch,

You did a fine impersonation.  

At this point, I'm quite happy not to sweat the 8+8/GSE/16+16
distinction.  If we can get to consensus that we need separation
of locators and identifiers, then we will have made good progress.
Let's agree on the macro before we work out the micro.

Tony


|    -----Original Message-----
|    From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] 
|    Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 7:24 AM
|    To: Bound, Jim
|    Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
|    Subject: Identifier/locator recap
|    
|    
|    On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
|    
|    > Could you write up your technical idea without a lot of 
|    man hours to
|    > describe and why it solves the multihome problem.
|    
|    I'm not Tony, but:
|    
|    Traditional multihoming as is done in IPv4 will not scale.
|    
|    An alternative is to give each host in a multihomed site 
|    an address for
|    each ISP the site is connected to. When (the link to) one 
|    ISP fails, the
|    communciation is diverted over the other ISP. However, 
|    current transport
|    protocols are unable to jump to new addresses in 
|    mid-session. Solution:
|    separate the identifier and locator functions of the IP address.
|    Transport protocols then use the identifier, which doesn't 
|    change during
|    the lifetime of the session, while IP uses the locator, 
|    which may be
|    changed at any time in order to route around broken parts of the
|    network.
|    
|    A few things that need to be addressed to make this happen:
|    
|    - Locators must always be present in each packet. But what 
|    about the
|      identifiers? Do we include them in each packet (= 
|    tunneling) or are
|      they implied?
|    
|    - How do we discover identifiers and/or locators?
|    
|    - How to we authenticate the relationship between locators and
|      identifiers?
|    
|    There is also the question of what makes good identifiers. 
|    HIP uses the
|    fingerprint of a cryptographic key. MHAP uses 
|    provider-independent IPv6
|    addresses that aren't visible in the global routing table. 
|    I myself have
|    suggested to use FQDNs as the first choice.
|    
|    Note that there seems consensus here that we shouldn't try 
|    to revive GSE
|    or 8+8: some kind of "16+16" would be much easier to deploy.
|    
|    Iljitsch
|    
|    
|