Subject: RE: Architectural approaches to multi6

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:58:47 -0800

|    The only architectural approach that I've seen on this 
|    list in recent
|    months is the notion of deprecating the concept of an "address",
|    in favour of using "locator" and "identifier" for the 
|    separate purposes
|    of routing and identity.  Maybe I've overlooked something ?
|    
|    If there is another architectural approach in the wings, 
|    maybe someone
|    would be kind enough to summarise that alternate approach 
|    to the list ?

Ran,

I've seen a number of other proposals, but at the architectural
level, they seem to all boil down to using tunneling to provide
virtual topology that would match the addressing.

While this certainly works and I'm a big fan of tunneling for
some reasons, I'm concerned about an architecture that makes
multi-homing a second class citizen.  It seems to me that
if we can do it right the first time, we should.

Tony

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:38:30 -0500

> if we can do it right the first time, we should.

I also would strongly prefer a solution that makes
multi-homing a native/first-class property of IPv6.

Does anyone else have any other architectural approaches
(besides the two mentioned so far) that the WG should
consider ??

Existing architectural approaches seem to be:
	1: identity/location separation; with the locator
		following the actual network topology & the
		identifier being quite independent of topology.
	2: tunneling to create a virtual topology
		that matches the addressing

Thanks,

Ran

---

From: marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Mar 2003 20:28:54 +0100

> (besides the two mentioned so far) that the WG should

managing multiple addresses a-la SCTP perhaps?

thanks, marcelo

-- 
marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
uc3m

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:24:43 +0100 (CET)

> multi-homing a native/first-class property of IPv6.

Agree. But I doubt that's going to happen without some serious changes
to different parts of the protocol stack. Is that something we're
comfortable with?

> 		that matches the addressing

3: remove addresses from all places in the protocol stack above the IP
   layer. If higher layers are unaware of addresses and the addresses
   follow the topology, IP can route around failures by changing
   addresses.

Iljitsch

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:25:38 +0200

Ran,

>         that matches the addressing

Well, a number of people have suggested to work on
addresses.  The various PI schemes may be unworkable
given the current hierarchical addressing and routing
structure; I don't know.  But I think that there
might be some benefits to be found if we took a deeper
look at the interplay between addressing and routing.

I am definitely not an expert in the area, but I have
heard people speaking about clustering based addressing
etc. instead of hierarchically assigned addresses.
Assigning the addresses somewhat dynamically based on
the real network topology, perhaps combined with an
identity/location separation, may be something worth
considering in the long run.

But that is probably too far fetched for this WG.

--Pekka Nikander