North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

  • From: Joe Maimon
  • Date: Sun Oct 16 05:25:02 2005 

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