CHOICES FOR MULTIADDRESSING
draft-crocker-mast-analysis-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dave Crocker | ||
| Last updated | 2003-10-22 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
An IP Address serves the dual roles as references to a 'place' on the Internet and to a host on the Internet, labeled 'locator' and 'identifier', respectively. Systems that use IP Addresses as identifiers cannot support dynamic changes in the mapping between the identifier and the locator. For a system to use a different IP Address pair, participants must initiate a new exchange. In the case of TCP, this means a new connection. In recent years, there have been efforts to overcome this limitation, through different approaches at different places in the Internet architecture. This paper reviews the basic requirements for support of multiaddressing (mobility and multihoming), and the efforts to support them. Barriers to adoption, administrative overhead, and operational efficiency are of particular concern.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)