> > I have a concern about the business model of the HIP which uses HIT > > (flat label) as host identifier. > > It seems it is more correct to say that the identifier is the HI, not > the HIT.
However, in most cases the HIT plays the role of identifier. The HI is only resorted when there is a conflict on the HIT. > > how can the id/loc mapping management been shared among different > > countries and different service providers? > > There are several ways. One is to use the DNS (draft-ietf-hip-dns) > with all its limitations but also its strengths. I don't think DNS is an optimal option since this approach requires every host should have a FQDN name. > Another one is the use of a DHT (draft-ahrenholz-hiprg-dht). The DHT > spreads the identifiers "at random". If you prefer more control on the > placement of keys, see draft-mathy-lisp-dht. If I understood the draft-mathy-lisp-dht correctly, the idea in this draft is based on the hierarchical identifier, e.g. IP address, which can be allocated and managed in a hierarchical way. So the idea in this draft is not suitable for flat label used in HIP. Best wishes, Xiaohu XU -- 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
