Xu Xiaohu allegedly wrote on 1/7/09 10:48 PM: >> Regarding HIP + map/encaps, maybe it is obvious to everyone >> else already but I think what that gives you is an endpoint >> identity (the HIT), an inner routing locator (iRLOC), and an >> outer RLOC (oRLOC). Up to now, LISP (and perhaps others) have >> been using the term "EID" to refer to what I mean by "iRLOC", >> and the term "RLOC" to refer to what I mean by "oRLOC". > > Since a pure id/locator split solution (e.g. HIP) could use multiple PA > address (locator) which are topologically aggregatable, there may be no need > to use the two layers of locator(iRLOC and oRLOC) > >> In this sense, "oRLOC" is routable within the scope of an >> interdomain region, while "iRLOC" is routable only within and >> end site (or edge network, or whatever you want to call it). >> The HIP HIT is not routable within any scope so it is purely >> an identifier and not a locator. > > When a legecy host A initiates a communication with a HIP-enabled host B, A > could send a packet to a nearby proxy (like ITR's role) by using B's HIT as > locator.
Would you replace host B's A record with a HIT? Or would this require a modification to host A? If you're going to modify A, why not just implement HIP? Thanks ... Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
