Re: tunneling [Was: Agenda for Vienna]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On 21 May 2003, marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> to my understanding multiple of the above solutions are based on the
> loc/id separation
> 
> That is:
> - mobility
> - HIP
> - address agile transports
> - loc/id
> 
> Are solutions based on the separation of loc/id roles. I mean all of
> them use a fixed identifier for application layer and multiple locators
> for routing (in this case in the end -hosts)

Agree.
 
> Moreover, i would say that all (host) multi-address solutions are based
> on loc/id split concept when they attempt to preserve established
> connections

Note that in all cases, preserving the connections may not be a 
requirement... the solution may be OK as is.
 
> - backup path over second ISP using routing or tunnels
> This may also be considered a loc/id separation, sine an alternative locator is used to reach a final destination 
> (so the original dest address plays the role of a locator)

You could stretch the term, but I wouldn't do this: this requires zero 
changes in host stacks.  It's just a routing thing, while those mentioned 
above in loc/id require modifications.

> However, i think that there is some fuzziness in this, so perhaps it
> would be interesting to have a more precise definition about what we are
> talking about when we use the loc/id split expression I've tried but
> couldn't find any short definition that i liked... Perhaps after we have
> a more precise definition we could ask for opinions and reach consensus
> more easily.

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