RE: Identifier/locator recap

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> 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.

To me this is a no brainer because I can't see how there
can exist a scalable approach to multihoming that doesn't
separate identifiers and locators.

At some level one could argue that host multi-addressing is scalable
(at the expense of moving complexity to the hosts and applications).but
my concern is that host multi-addressing will more or less have
the hosts track with source/destination combinations (which approximate
routing paths at some rough level) work vs. doesn't.
To get fast failover this essentially turns into doing end-to-end "hello"
traffic instead of relying on the local hello traffic performed by the routing
protocols. So I think there are severe limitations in making this scale.
(And trying to aggregate this end-to-end "hello" traffic will just
cause a reinvention of routing.)

From the email traffic I'm guessing there is a significant fraction of the
folks on this list that think that identifier/locator separation is necessary
for the long-term solution.
There seems to be more disagreement about possible shorter term steps.

But I could be misreading things...
  Erik