[rrg] Rejecting all but Strategy A

[Scott Brim]

Xu Xiaohu allegedly wrote on 1/7/09 10:48 PM:
>> Regarding HIP + map/encaps, maybe it is obvious to everyone 
>> else already but I think what that gives you is an endpoint 
>> identity (the HIT), an inner routing locator (iRLOC), and an 
>> outer RLOC (oRLOC). Up to now, LISP (and perhaps others) have 
>> been using the term "EID" to refer to what I mean by "iRLOC", 
>> and the term "RLOC" to refer to what I mean by "oRLOC".
> 
> Since a pure id/locator split solution (e.g. HIP) could use multiple PA
> address (locator) which are topologically aggregatable, there may be no need
> to use the two layers of locator(iRLOC and oRLOC)
> 
>> In this sense, "oRLOC" is routable within the scope of an 
>> interdomain region, while "iRLOC" is routable only within and 
>> end site (or edge network, or whatever you want to call it).
>> The HIP HIT is not routable within any scope so it is purely 
>> an identifier and not a locator.
> 
> When a legecy host A initiates a communication with a HIP-enabled host B,  A
> could send a packet to a nearby proxy (like ITR's role) by using B's HIT as
> locator. 

Would you replace host B's A record with a HIT?  Or would this require a
modification to host A?  If you're going to modify A, why not just
implement HIP?

Thanks ... Scott