One of the repeated arguments against host-based solution is that it
increases signalling load. Of course, that is true for a pure host-
based solution where each host individually maintains the mapping from
EIDs to RLOCs. So, from a signalling load point of view, such a
solution is not very good if the mapping granularity is at the site
level.
There is a relatively easy solution to this, which brings the inter-
site signalling load to the level of tunnel-router-like maps-and-
encaps solution. The basic idea is that the hosts *delegate* the
signalling to a tunnel-router-like device at the site border. (At the
same time, the hosts can still signal individually through another
interface; consider e.g. a laptop which is attached with a wire to a
corporate site but at the same time has a wireless interface using an
open WLAN.)
So, when both a host and a site support a (multi-homing/mobility)
solution, the following can be done:
1. The host detects that the site supports the solution, e.g. through
DHCP/ND.
2. The host delegates any mobility/multihoming/tunnelling signalling
to the TR at the site.
3. The site border TR/whatever takes care of signalling on the host's
behalf.
When considering HIP, the theory is discussed in length in Jukka
Ylitalo's Ph.D.
http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2008/isbn9789512295319/
For a practical example, see Section 4 of draft-melen-hip-mr-01.txt
For measurement results, see Jukka Ylitalo, Jan Melén, Patrik Salmela,
and Henrik Petander, "An Experimental Evaluation of a HIP based
Network Mobility Scheme", in Proc. of the 6th International Conference
on Wired/Wireless Internet Communications (WWIC 2008), pp. 139-151,
--Pekka Nikander
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
