Earlier, Toni Stoev wrote: > Issue #2, technical: Identity/location separation with locally unique > identifiers > > On Sunday 13 June 2010 at 00:30:00 Tony Li sent: > > > What happens when a node with a locally > > > unique identifier in a subnetwork moves to another subnetwork > > > where there is another node with exactly the same (locally > > > unique) identifier? How are the two nodes distinguished, and how > > > are their ongoing sessions preserved? > > > > You are correct, locally unique identifiers will have mobility issues and > > hosts should not use their locally unique identifier outside if its scope. > > There is no identity/location separation with locally unique identifiers.
I think we disagree. Even with local-scope Identifier values, the Identifier does not name a location && the Locator does not identify a node. So the concepts of identity and location are crisply separated, with clear semantics for each. Another way of examining this might be to consider that with ILNP, routing only uses Locators, while upper-layer protocols (e.g. TCP/UDP pseudo-header checksum; IPsec Security Association) bind only to the Identifiers, never to the Locators. Again, this shows clear separation of location from identity, and this is also true with local-scope Identifier values. Again, this is a major architectural change from IPv4/IPv6, where the upper-layer protocols (e.g. TCP/UDP pseudo-header checksum, IPsec Security Association) bind to the entire IP address and misuse it as a node identifier. The issues the deployed world has with things like NAT or various Mobile IP approaches or even (indirectly) site multi-homing are because location was incorrectly bound up in the upper-layer protocols when those protocols only really cared about node identity. Yours, Ran Atkinson _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
