Re: Architectural approaches to multi6

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

Hi Ran,

I am wondering if these two approaches are the same or not:

- The first case is where there is clear separation between locators and
identifiers. In this case, a binding between an identifier and one more 
locators is needed. 
- The other case is where multiple addresses are used for reaching the
other end. I am not sure that you need an identifier, all you need to
know is that there is a set of possible locators for reaching the other
end of this communication. (Perhaps the identifier is the set of
locators?)

Do you think that there is a difference between this two approaches?

Thanks, marcelo

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 14:14, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> On Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003, at 04:37 America/Montreal, marcelo bagnulo 
> wrote:
> > I am not so sure about that. I would say that in MIP identifier and
> > locators are not separated. I mean, a given address can work both as a
> > locator and as an identifier, depending on the situation. Perhaps, I
> > would say that the identifier role and the locator role are separated.
> 
> Marcelo,
> 
> 	As the Subject: line of the thread indicates, my comment
> was from a high-level architectural perspective.  Architecturally,
> MIPv6 separates the locators from the identifiers.
> 
> 	Sure the implementation details might vary, but I'm
> not interested (right now) in any implementation details.
> I'm only trying to sort out the *architectural* or
> highest-level differences between different approaches,
> for now.
> 
> 	If/after there is convergence on an architecture, then
> would be a better time (IMHO), to sort through implementation
> details.
> 
> Ran
-- 
marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
uc3m