Re: [Ila] [5gangip] SIR [was ILA forwarding]

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Saleem Bhatti <saleem@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> On 01 May 2018, at 22:09, Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> With SIR fixed, I wonder how do you address multi homed UEs in ILA?
>>> Maybe you did not need it for VMs because they are not multi homed but UEs
>>> definitely have multiple interfaces.
>>
>> That's a tough problem. If both interfaces are in the same ILA domain,
>> then there's no issue it should just work. If they're not then
>> something needs to be done across domains for it to work seamlessly
>> where addresses associated in one domain can be routed in another.
>>
>>> ILNP treats it using two different locators but same identifier which seems
>>> reasonable.
>>>
>> But then locators are exposed to end devices-- privacy problem.
>
> ILNP offers options for location privacy, without tunnelling or loss of end-to-end semantics for a flow - please section 7 of RFC6748.
>
Hi Saleem,

>From RFC6748:

"To enable this function, we use a middlebox that we call the Locator
Rewriting Relay... The operation of the LRR is conceptually very
simple.  We assume that the LRR first has mappings as given in
expressions..."

Looks like an LRR is providing almost identical functionality as an
ILA-R. You might even be able to leverage the ILA-R code to implement
it.

Tom

> Cheers,
> --/Saleem
>
>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Behcet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 5gangip mailing list
>>> 5gangip@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 5gangip mailing list
>> 5gangip@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>