-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] wrote: > On woensdag, aug 27, 2003, at 13:18 Europe/Amsterdam, Jeroen Massar > wrote: > > > I totally agree with your current insight that we need to seperate > > the routing from the host identifier. IMHO every host should have > > one globally unique ID and could have multiple transports, even if > > those are IPv4, IPv6, IPX or whatever based and going over multiple > > links or not. Though we should limit to IP based protocols to not > > make it too complicated. Such a mechanism could solve problems for: > > "site-locals" constructions, multihoming, mobile-ip without hindering > > the size of the routing table as people could continue to use current > > routing, thus TLA based and fully aggregated to the TLA level in the > > GRT. > > The multi6 wg has been working on locator/identifier separation as a > way to solve the multihoming in IPv6 problem for a while now. And ever since they haven't progressed much unfortunatly :( > The problems we're facing (apart from the fact that there are > many ways to skin this particular cat and everyone has a different > preference) is that additional mechanisms are needed to get the extra > information across, and there is a price to be paid in one or more of: > additional round trips, more dependence on the DNS or something similar > to DNS, Indeed, one will always have this problem, my current idea relies on DNS, but if a program currently tries to contact another host it will usually already do a forward resolve and some apps (ssh for instance) also like to do a reverse resolve already. So these shouldn't be much of a problem. In the idea I have I have also added the possibility to limit these lookups until a failure occurs. > additional per-packet overhead, Not required for my idea. > loss of backward compatibility, I covered that in my idea, by simply adding functionality and not replacing it in a manner which could cause unexpected effects on the installed base. The installed base won't have the benefit > increased complexity. Not overcomable, but it should not be noticeble much in the idea I have. It's also more of a Proof of concept for me to see if I can get such a mechanism to work and to proof that such mechanisms are viable. Query me at RIPE next week if you want to hear more about it. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP0zaOimqKFIzPnwjEQL+ZQCeIR0X0MEUnLsow6IGwKfFLsYTstEAn2SQ zMvifMn7z9A12oPp82cjXmCF =LdLQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----