Re: Mutli6 meeting in Vienna

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> >  I suggest that everyone submits solution classes to be presented and 
> > we then identify the central issue with that class beforehand so we 
> > don't have to be sidetracked by either minor details or fairly obvious 
> > fatal flaws in the meeting. This should allows us to focus on what's 
> > important.
> >
> 
>  From what I can tell, there are two main-line solution classes that 
> have some wider support. A loc/id separated solution, which seems to 
> have the widest support and what most of the discussions seems to 
> circling around. The second solution class seems to be a "host based" 
> solution.
> In addition there is HIP, which seems to pop up as an example in both 
> of these solution classes.
> 
> Am I correct in my assumptions above?

I think HIP is a loc/id separation solution.  But perhaps you meant 
something like "loc/id separation in the network solution" by your 
terminology?

In my book, HIP is just a way to do certain things in a host-based
solution, e.g. fix connection survivability, possibly make the ingress
filtering easier/eliminate it etc.

HIP is also fit for some other solution spaces for e.g. connection
survivability, but it won't be able to solve the whole multihoming problem
for certain classes of networks, especially those who require load
sharing.

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