I think it would be a serious mistake to introduce a new architecture on the basis that "single host" EIDs/micronets (single IPv4 addresses or a /64 for IPv6) was impractical, undesirable or unlikely to be widely in demand.
If we are stuck with IPv4 for the next decade or two, there will be a huge demand and need this "single host granularity". I am unable to imagine how general Internet users, with the possible exception of cell-phones, will migrate en-masse to IPv6 without an IPv4 address (public, or private behind NAT). With IPv4, to be portable and/or multihomed (conventionally, or with Ivip, a few seconds delay for inter-ISP mobility) the device or network needs at least one public IPv4 address. I think it would be a bad idea to contrive two systematically different architectural approaches for multihoming based on whether the end-user had 2 or more ETRs to choose from. It sounds messy and bound up in too many assumptions. The architecture will need to work well long after these assumptions become invalid. LISP-ALT, LISP-NERD, APT and Ivip can all technically support single host granularity. The question is more about how to scale the system for the assumed larger number of EIDs/micronets this would involve. I think a primary goal of the architecture is that over the decades to come it be able to scale to very high numbers of EIDs/micronets - whether they are "single host" or not. I think 10^8 is a goal for 2020 - and 10^9 or maybe 10^10 in the long-term future. Ivip involves no assumptions about the number of ETRs. The mapping is from a micronet to a single ETR address. It is up to the end-user - who supplies their choice of mulithoming monitoring, decision-making and mapping update system - how many ETRs they use. - Robin http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/ -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
