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".
That is my basic model as well. Further, as Brian observed, that can
be applied recursively.
But then there are a few variations.
1. In the case of pure host-based HIP, there is no iRLOC but only the
HIT:
HIT -> oRLOC.
2. In the case of host-based HIP and HIP MR, the mapping is HIT ->
iRLOC -> oRLOC, which can be applied recursively leading to:
HIT -> LOC0 -> LOCi -> LOCn.
3a. In the case of legacy hosts and HIP proxy, for IPv6 you *can* make
iRLOC == HIT (which is what we did in the first HIP proxy work,
described in Patrik's thesis):
iRLOC == HIT -> oRLOC
3b. Alternatively, you can make HITs and iRLOCs separate, as you need
for IPv4 anyway:
iRLOC <-> HIT -> oRLOC
Generalising, we get two cases:
a) host-based HIP generalised: HIT -> LOC0 -> LOCi -> LOCn
b) proxy HIP generalised: iRLOC <-> HIT -> LOC0 -> LOCi -> LOCn
In the latter case, the HIT can be "virtual" or "imaginary", if so
desired. (See my previous message.)
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.
That is the theory. As I noted above, for IPv6 you can make HIT ==
iRLOC if you want. That is, the format allows that.
--Pekka
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
