Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote on 11/25/2009 2:08 PM:
> > From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email protected]>
>
> > I am left wondering how does the locator and identifier separation
> > fit into the story line.
> > ...
> > They separation seems to be orthogonal to the aggregation based
> > solutions.
>
> No, because a lot of the routing-table entries which are appearing now are
> 'de-aggregates' caused by a number of things which separation of location
> and identity will give us additional tools to provide _without_ having to
> depend on the routing.
Yes.
> (BTW, "locator and identifier" is not really optimal terminology, because
> those refer to specific kinds of names, and it's better to refer to the
> generic concepts, i.e. 'identity' and 'location'.)
Yes and even better is to talk about verbs instead of nouns. That is,
the problem is not in the identities themselves ("Scott"), but in
identification _functions_ which misuse location-dependent information
("Ithaca" instead of "Scott").
> - Provider-independent addresses, which are inherently unaggregatable:
> with I/L separation, the PI addresses need not be advertized in the
> modified part of the network, only the location of the entry routers.
Unfortunately people also like PI addresses because of site renumbering
issues. See below.
Joel M. Halpern allegedly wrote on 11/26/2009 2:49 AM:
> The separation of identity and location should mean, for example, that
> multi-homed sites can be properly aggregated in teh core routing table.
> So the separation is distinctly applicable to multi-homed sites and
> their inter-domain aggregation.
I assume that "properly aggregated" means either PA addresses are used
inside the site or site addresses are not aggregated at all.
Location/identification separation is necessary but not sufficient.
Scott
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
