Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

below...

Brian Haberman wrote:
> 
> Erik Nordmark wrote:
> 
> >>The use of the term "Identifier" or "ID" sweeps an important
> >>issue under the rug in some cases:  Is this a host ID or an
> >>interface ID?  The current IP (v4 and v6) architecture uses
> >>interface IDs.  IPv4 implementations are generally constrained
> >>to one ID per interface, while IPv6 supports multiple IDs per
> >>interface.  ID selection is linked to outbound interface
> >>selection -- it is still unclear to me what implications this
> >>has for ID or Locator selection in ID/Loc separation protocols.
> >
> >
> > An interface ID makes no sense to me.
> >
> > The concept of a stack name, where there can be one or more "stacks"
> > on a given host, provides the right granularity to me.
> > Each "stack" can presumbly have one or more network interfaces.
> 
> I agree with Erik that an "interface ID" doesn't make sense.  The
> question I have is a stack ID high enough?  I have been mulling
> over the issue of how a security association should work here.  Is
> the SA between stacks?  between apps?  between users?
> 
> There may be cases where each of the above approach is useful.

Indeed. And they are not mutually exclusive. However, does multi6
need to consider any SA higher than the network or transport level?

   Brian