The correct expression for "locally-unique identifier" is "privately-unique identifier". This privately-unique identifier, administered to be unique within a location scope, provides for identity/location separation in communications within that scope. The privately-unique identifier, administered to be unique within a location scope, does not provide for identity/location separation in communications beyond that scope.
On Friday 25 June 2010 at 20:23:54 Tony Li sent: > > >> A locally administered identifier is perfectly adequate for global > >> communications and other ILNP hosts can easily recognize it. > > > > Not without the assurance of the pursuing locator. Both the locator and the > > identifier make the uniqueness. > > > Again, the locally administered identifier is bound to a site. Typically, a > site will have a number of locators. > > > >> The only difference is that the host cannot roam outside of its > >> administrative scope. > > > > So "locally administered" identifier is bound to its location: subnetwork, > > site. Where is the identity/location separation then? > > > A locally administered identifier still provides seamless mobility within the > site, which is not without value. Hosts wanting seamless mobility across > sites will need to use a global identifier. We suspect that the vast majority > of hosts to make use of a global identifier as a result, however, the local > identifier is part of the architecture so that those that have strong privacy > requirements can also participate. > > Tony > > > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
