Re: Identifier/locator recap

[marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Noel,

Fully agree with your comment, just wanted to add...

> The way in which one does multi-homing that scales is use of multiple
> routing-names (a.k.a. addresses)#. Not as much attention has been given to
> this part of the problem (e.g. how do you decide which address to use, how do
> you decide when to switch, etc) although I have recently seen some traffic
> about it.
> 
> But please everyone, keep in mind that separation of location and identity is
> *not* what supports multi-homing - what makes multi-homing work is use of
> multiple addresses.

...bound to *one* (upper layer) identifier (which can be both a locator
and an identifier (like HoAs)). 

IMHO this is the difficult part (security, preservation of established
connections)



>  Separation of location and identity comes in because of
> *other* concerns that people have.
> 
This is solution for a more general problem but it also addresses this
particular issue. If the identifier and the locator are already
separated and the architecture provides tools to bind them safely, i
would say that you have solved the mh problem. 

Regards, marcelo

> 	Noel
> 
> 
> Note #: I think it's possible to do multi-homing with only a single
> routing-name (a.k.a. address) - but to do so would require that the addresses
> be asigned automatically by a system which was looking at the actual physical
> connectivity. In other words, addresses would not be assigned by a registry,
> and would change as the topology changed. In terms of the location/identity
> issue, you'd still wind up with the same problem, that an address was not a
> useful long-term idenitifer of *who* you were talking to - it would only say
> *where* it is.
-- 
marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
uc3m