Subject: RE: Agenda for Vienna

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 01:02:39 -0700

|    Some notions that seem relatively undisputed:
|    
|    - we separate the identifier and locator functions so we can have 
|    multiple locators and still have a single identifier
|    - IP in transit works with locators, everything above the 
|    IP layer with 
|    the identifier
|    

Do we really have consensus on these points?  Does this imply that
tunneling is no longer a consideration?

Tony

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:14:51 +0300 (EEST)

> tunneling is no longer a consideration?

For some scenarios, and maybe in the long term, I think the separation is 
probably necessary.

But that doesn't mean it solves all the problems, or fits all the 
scenarios.  On the contrary.  Connection survivability?  Sure.  Load 
sharing?  Nope.  Provider indendence?  Maybe not, difficult to say.  Etc.

Personally, I see a ID/LOC separation as a long term issue, and more of a
distraction at the moment.  It will not be able to give us all, so too 
much attention to it could be dangerous.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:11:22 +0200

> |    IP layer with the identifier

> Do we really have consensus on these points?

Consensus is probably too big a word. "Relatively undisputed" is as far 
as I am prepared to go at this point... But do you see workable 
alternatives inside the loc/id realm?

> Does this imply that tunneling is no longer a consideration?

Tunneling is one way to implement a locator/identifier separation 
solution.

Or are you referring to some other tunneling mechanism?