Subject: RE: Why?

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:49:55 -0800

> Noel Chiappa wrote:
> However, another way to look at this is to say that what
> they really want is to configure their machines with only
> one identifier, one which is (mostly) location-independent,
> and therefore serves mostly to identify them. They are
> quite happy to then have those machines depend on another
> device, at the edge of their network, to provide the
> location-dependent routing-names for their machines.

This is exactly what MHAP does, but there is a catch too: the complexity
reduction at the host level requires extra infrastructure and/or
complexity for the ID/LOC mapping that becomes a show-stopper and barely
offsets the benefits of the added simplicity at the host level. The
complexity issue is not eliminated, simply moved from one realm to the
other and this is not enough to cut it.

This is pretty much the issue with all solutions so far: in terms of
simplicity (or complexity) what the solution puts in one pocket it
steals from the other one and the overall complexity is not reduced.

Michel.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf