Re: tunneling [Was: Agenda for Vienna]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On dinsdag, mei 20, 2003, at 22:28 Europe/Amsterdam, Tony Li wrote:

> Meta note: if we're trying to talk architecture, I'd say that
> dealing with the identifier/locator relationship is secondary.
I don't think we can make informed decisions about the architectural 
approach unless we know how well each approach is going to work out. 
That's why I keep going into detail.

> Our primary discussion should be about alternatives to
> "identifier/locator split" solutions.  That's clearly one
> architecture, what are others that folks find credible?
Ok, let me list some solutions that have come up:

- mobility
- HIP
- source routing / conditional source routing
- controlled deaggregation
- backup path over second ISP using routing or tunnels
- address agile transports
- loc/id
- geo aggregation

I think the limitations of each have been discussed in the past. Some 
kind of more formal recap would probably be useful at this point. Kurt, 
is that what you want in your first proposed Vienna meeting or do you 
only want "active" solutions discussed there?

> Tunneling has certainly been mentioned.  I've always considered
> this simply a mechanism for virtualizing the topology.  There's
> effectively still a single address per host, so there's nothing
> new in addressing.
After some discussions on the ipv6mh mailinglist we reached the 
conclusion that rewriting the original source and destination addresses 
with something else at the source and then replacing the original 
addresses before the packet is processed at the destination is simply 
tunneling optimized for header size at the cost of some state. So I 
guess that makes the loc/id thing a dynamic version of tunneling...