> From: Christian Vogt <[email protected]>
>> Here are some examples of things which are causing extra routing table
>> entries to appear, which can be done without those extra entries if
>> there is a identity/location binding layer
> while your text is phrased in the context of network-based
> identifier-locator separation ... similar arguments hold for a
> host-based separation
Actually, my text made no reference to whether the separation was
network-based (i.e. done by (some) routers) or host-based (done by hosts).
When it comes to preferring network-based or host-based solutions, when
considering _architectural_ factors, I actually prefer the latter (because I
want to move functionality out of the network, to maximize long-term
flexibility). However, _engineering_ factors (e.g. the difficulty of changing
hosts) has long led me to conclude that _initial_ deployment has to be
network-based.
Note that I did say 'initially' - over time, I would like/expect to see the
functionality optionally migrate into hosts (i.e. hosts may, but are not
required to, include code which takes up the location/identity separation).
In particular, doing it in a host-based way gives the host more control, so
there's a positive incentive for the hosts to take this up.
However, I still think that engineering considerations favour network-based
for the initial deployment - and have since the 1980s; an advanced routing
system which I worked on back then used the same approach, and for exactly
the same reasons. The vast increase in the size of the host installed base
since then has only reinforced the case for starting with network-based
deployment.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
