[85709] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Sun Oct 16 05:24:22 2005
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 05:23:52 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4C37DD94-1A50-47C8-B199-D232B8644240@tony.li>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Tony Li wrote:
>
>
>> How is a split between locator / identifier any different logicaly
>> from the existing ipv4 source routing?
>
>
>
> IPv4 source routing, as it exists today, is an extremely limited
> mechanism for specifying waypoints along the path to the destination.
IOW the end stations were supposed to be able to tell eachother how to
route to eachother. Obviously that does not work in todays internet. But
that was a seperation between the endpoints ID and the routing of the
packet.
>
> This is completely orthogonal to a real identifier/locator split, which
> would divide what we know of as the 'address' into two separate spaces,
> one which says "where" the node is, topologically, and one which says
> "who" the node is. One might use the identifier in the TCP
> pseudo-header, but not the locator, for one example, immediately
> allowing both mobility and multi-homing.
Do you mean adding a second address space to be used by all l3 protocols?
Or adding a second address space for every L3 protocol? Or adding a
layer 2.5 address space? That appears to be what shim6 is.
Also my original question -- How do I send my packet to the other node?
I cant just address my packet to the ID, I have to use either
information supplied by that node or by a third party.
Source routing or routing tables.
If this decoupling depends on inband negotiated information, than this
allows survivability, but it is not multihoming where multihoming is
described as what we do now.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
