RE: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches

["Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jukka Ylitalo [mailto:jukka.ylitalo@nomadiclab.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:09 AM
> To: Erik Nordmark
> Cc: marcelo bagnulo braun; Multi6 List
> Subject: Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches
> 
> It would be also possible to change HIP in a way that the applications
> were to see routable IP-addresses, instead of HITs.  
> Basically, the Multi6
> enhanced HIP would implement a NOID kind of AID-locator 
> split. In this way,
> it would be possible to use HIP in an opportunistic mode, like SSH.
> I believ that the application layer will be the key element when 
> combining different
> wedge3.5 proposals.

Rather than NOID kind of split, maybe CB64-like split is preferable?
(where lower bits of AID match the HIT and upper bits the prefix,
rather than having the AID be unrelated to the HIT)?  It wouldn't
have to be a /64 split necessarily-- just reverse mappable with
DNSSEC.  I agree that HIP opportunistic mode should be able to 
deal with it.

Already in HIP there has been some struggle with what AID to pass
to applications, and some level of discomfort with passing non
routable values posing as IP addresses to legacy apps, for many of 
the reasons cited in the previous posts (see also Appendix A of
the draft HIP base spec).  For legacy APIs and legacy apps, then, 
maybe this kind of AID/m6 identifier split could satisfy
the referral issue, or perhaps instead being underpinned by WIMP
or other lighter-weight m6 identifier, as you and Erik suggest.

Tom