Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?

[Thierry Ernst <ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp>]

>     > I believe the question cannot be resolved in a general sense
> 
> I don't agree. If you decide it's absolutely necessary to provide a
> capability which inherently separates location and identity (be it switching
> providers while keeping "connections" open - even if it's sessions, not
> classical TCP connections - or mobility, or whatever), they you *have*
> answered the question "in a general sense".

> Perhaps a more useful question is "do we want to provide one set of
> underlying architectural capabilities which can be used to provide separation
> of location and identity to a number of different "applications" - such as
> mobility, multi-homing, etc.

I would personally support that path, but is multi6 the right working
group for a genenal purposed loc+id separation solution ? If the idea is
to standardize a solution which can be used for multihoming, mobility,
etc - (which I would like to see happening), I think it goes further
than the multi6 charter.


> 
>     > specifically not if you ask for a "locator/identifier split", which by
>     > its very wording is tied to the Internet Protocol layer.
> 
> Well, not really. I can easily imagine providing the "identification" part at
> another layer - e.g. as part of some sort of session thingy.
> 
> However, if you want to keep the existing TCP (and I would think that's a
> good idea, if you want to try and keep within the bounds of what's vaguely
> feasible), then I suppose you have a point.

Thierry.