Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?

[Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>]

Hi Tony,

> 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?

Is it good enough to say that I think we should explore
options in this area?

I have two reservations about making a sweeping statement
that this is the right solution to site multihoming in
IPv6:

(1) It isn't 100% well-defined.  The NOID proposal, for
    example, doesn't really split the ID and locator into
    separate fields -- the same value serves different
    functions at different layers.

(2) We don't have a completely worked example.  So, we
    can't be sure that this type of approach will meet
    the requirements with an acceptable impact on the
    other layers of the system, acceptable performance,
    etc.

But, I do think that this solution space is promising
enough to be worth investigating further.  Is that close
enough?

Margaret