Subject: RE: WG next steps

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:23:39 -0800

|   Who said the solutions are all in the routing domain?

Well Brian, I see it as being routing and addressing issue.
I realize that many people are interested in attacking it
with tunnels, but I see that as virtual topology and not
all that different.

Yes, there are security implications, but this IS about
how to find hosts.  And that's a routing problem.

Tony

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:36:17 +0100

> with tunnels, but I see that as virtual topology and not

There are also people interested in attacking it via transport
solutions.  I guess you could call SCTP or HIP "virtual topologies",
but I wouldn't.

> how to find hosts.  And that's a routing problem.

There are lots of ways to find hosts that aren't typically considered
routing, e.g. DNS.

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC

---

From: "marcelo bagnulo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:34:21 +0100

Hello Shane,

> solutions.  I guess you could call SCTP or HIP "virtual topologies",
Do you think that HIP is a transport solution?

In more general terms, identifier-locator mapping function belongs to the
network layer or to the transport layer?

My guess is that this feature should be common to all transport layers and
that transport layers should only deal with identifiers. I mean, only the
network layer have to deal with locators.

Regards, marcelo