© Antônio M. Alberti 2011 Host Identification and Location Decoupling: A Comparison of Approaches Bruno Magalhães Martins Antônio Marcos Alberti

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

Host Identification and Location Decoupling: A Comparison of

Approaches

Bruno Magalhães MartinsAntônio Marcos Alberti


Outline1. Motivation

2. Approaches for Host ID/Loc Splitting

3. Comparison

4. Conclusion


Motivation Current IP address identification + location (overload).

This limitates mobility, multihoming, scalability, etc.

Future networks need to separate identifiers (ID) from locators (Loc) the so called ID/Loc splitting.

Why ID/Loc splitting? To move hosts without “loss of identity”.


Approaches for Host ID/Loc Splitting Mobile IP HIP (Host Identity Protocol) LISP (Locator ID Separation Protocol) MILSA (Mobility and Multihoming Supporting Identifier Locator

Split Architecture) Akari MCP (Mobility Control Protocol)


Mobile IP Idea:

Two IP addresses: Home-address static; works as an ID for app. layer; Care-of-address dynamic; according to node’s location.

Two components: Home-agent atributes home-address; mantains mapping to current

location;

Foreign-agent atributes care-of-address; informs home-agent.

Identification: Home-Address

Location: Care-of-Address


Mobile IP


HIP (Host Identity Protocol) Idea:

New namespace between network and transport layers: Host ID Layer

Identification: Host Identifier Public key as a flat name; provides unique IDs;

Location: IP address.

Without HIP With HIP


LISP (Locator ID Separation Protocol) Idea:

Address mapping between edge and core IP networks; IP over UDP over IP; two IP addresses: EIDs (Endpoint Identifiers) persistent; used as an ID;

RLOCs (Routing Locators) used to locate edge routers.

Two components: ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router) maps EIDs on RLOCs;

ETR (Egress Tunnel Router) maps RLOCs on EIDs.

End Host Identification/Location: EIDs

Edge Router Identification/Location: RLOCs


LISP (Locator ID Separation Protocol)


MILSA (Mobility and Multihoming Supporting Identifier Locator Split Architecture)

Idea: Separation of trust relations, called domains, and the relations of

connectivity, called zones; Separation between signaling and data plan. RZBS (Zone Bridging Realm Server) - provides dynamic mapping

between IDs and locators.

Identification: Assigned at domain level;

Location: Assigned at zone level;


MILSA (Mobility and Multihoming Supporting Identifier Locator Split Architecture)

Domainsm

Zones


Akari Idea:

New namespace between network and transport layers: ID Layer.

Identification: By name and/or by identifier (ID) obtained by hash function; Legible and unique local names; Includes hierachical topology information in global names;

Location: IP, non-IP, post-IP.


Akari

Local Name

Global Name

ID

Locator

Hash Function

+IMS Domain Name

Identification

LocationSource: Akari Prpject


MCP (Mobility Control Protocol) Idea:

New namespace between network and transport layers: HID-based Communication Layer.

Identification: HIDs (Host Identifiers) hash function of host’s proprietary public

key.

Location: Two protocols:

ADP (Access Delivery Protocol); BDP (Backbone Delivery).

Application/Transport

HID-based Communication

Network Delivery (ADP/BDP)


Comparison

Hash function


Conclusion ID/Loc splitting is one of the most important solutions to address

some of the current Internet limitations.

Legible names are important to people.

Approaches need to support post-IP designs.

We need to evaluate the introduction of new layers.

We need more holistic and integrated designs: To cover relationships among identifiers, names, locators and

routing. To improve security and trust. To integrate with information ID/Loc splitting.

Documents

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011 Host Identification and Location Decoupling: A Comparison of Approaches Bruno Magalhães Martins Antônio Marcos Alberti