RE: Consensus on identifier/locator split?

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

Hi Tony,

I think that a previous question that we may ask is whether we agree that we
will use PA addresses (topologically meaningfull addresses)  or we will
assign PI addresses.

If we choose to use PA addresses, then we need to have multiple PA addresses
in multi-hmed environments, this implies that when a node A is communication
with a multi-homed node, node A has to know that all the PA addresses belogn
to the same mh node, so the location and id function are splitted at some
level (IP, transport, application), because somewhere someone knows that
multiple locators are linked to a sinlge entity.

If we use PI addresses we only have a single address which accomplishes both
the id and the loc fucntion so we don't have to split.

So, the question fo me is, do we agree we will use multiple PA addresses in
multi-homed environments? if so i would say we agree that the identifier
function and the location function are splitted.

Regards, marcelo

PS: I know smoe are unconfortable with this PA PI terminology, please read
as topology meaningfull and topology independent

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org]En
> nombre de Tony Li
> Enviado el: miercoles, 06 de agosto de 2003 19:23
> Para: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Consensus on identifier/locator split?
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
> I don't mean to disrupt other constructive conversations,
> so please carry on with those.
>
> I'd just like to get a sense from the group about where
> we are so far.  Do we have consensus about splitting
> the address into locators and identifiers?  Note that
> I'm NOT asking about specifics, like "how big", "what
> mappings exist", "is it secure", etc. Do we agree that
> we want to go down this path?
>
> Silence is not assent...
>
> Thanks,
> Tony
>