Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals

[Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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?

For the purpose of multi6, I agree with Erik that a "stack ID" is
sufficient.

Regards,
Brian