Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches

El 30/06/2004, a las 17:29, Brian E Carpenter escribió:
>>>
>>> CGAs have other downsides for multihoming, too.
>>>
>> such as?
>
>
> <chair hat off>
>
> I really don't want to start a discussion here about cryptographic
> strength, but my objection to CGAs in the multi6 context is that they
> include the /48 prefix in the hash, and that is variable in multi6,
> which means that the host ID changes when you change prefix. I think
> that's an unfortunate property because it eliminates some possible
> tricks in the ID/locator split.
>

Well, probably it is my fault for using the wrong terminology, but i 
was considering cgas as a concept rather than the specific approach 
followed by the send wg.
for instance you can consider the cb64 draft or even the ideas 
discussed between Iljitsch and Jari about including all the prefixes or 
some other workarounds.

My point was basically that having a string that it can be used as a 
valid locator and that it also has a crypto nature would provide 
several benefits, since it enables a way to prove its ownership and 
apps can treat it as a regular ip address

Makes more sense?

regards, marcelo

PS: it is clear that if we are going to use one locator as ULP id, the 
id will have to change when renumbering, the benefit of this, is that 
apps still handle ip addresses and that most of their assumptions still 
hold.

>    Brian
>