Re: Re:loc/id vs HIP (was: tunneling [Was: Agenda for Vienna])

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

Hi Pekka,

> Again: this doesn't solve the whole problem.  Consider e.g. Craig's
> traffic engineering requirements, or (to a lesser degree) requirements
> that the nodes should not have to renumbered ("deploying/retiring
> locators") when the ISP's are changing.

A comment about the renumbering issue.
First i do not think this is part of the multi-homing issue, so if we
find a solution that does not solve this i would say it is ok.
However, i do think that it is a related problem and it would be
interesting to find a solution that also support this (just as it would
be nice that the split loc/id provides support for mobility)

In the particular case of HIP, i think that it does facilitates
renumbering. Renumbering involves changing addresses in hosts but it
also involves changing ACLs and other configurations that involve IP
address as identifier.
Since HIP provides a stable identifier, those configurations could use
the stable identifier instead of the address. I agree that this does not
completely solve the issue. The cost of this is that the identifier has
to be carried in every packet, i guess.

regards, marcelo


-- 
marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
uc3m