Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2010
DOI: 10.1109/jsac.2010.101012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

MILSA: A New Evolutionary Architecture for Scalability, Mobility, and Multihoming in the Future Internet

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The architectures are classified by how to assign an identifier to a host. A router-based scheme assigns an identifier that specifies a network endpoint though which a host is connected to the network [26], [27]. Identifiers can be aggregated to achieve scalability in routing; however, this causes this scheme fail to naturally support mobility [26].…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The architectures are classified by how to assign an identifier to a host. A router-based scheme assigns an identifier that specifies a network endpoint though which a host is connected to the network [26], [27]. Identifiers can be aggregated to achieve scalability in routing; however, this causes this scheme fail to naturally support mobility [26].…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some proposals follow a core-edge separation approach [26], [27] wherein the separation is achieved in routers instead of hosts. Despite Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) [26] not introducing any changes to the stack of hosts, it does not support mobility due to their router-based identifiers.…”
Section: Locator/identifier Separationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Routing Policy Stub reachability permitted in global routing tables Stub reachability not permitted in global routing tables Provider Independent (PI) addresses permitted for stubs Today's Internet (IPv4 and IPv6) eFIT [3], ILNP [4], LISP [5], HIP [6], MILSA [7], FARA [8], NPTv6 [9], Shim6 [10], TurfNet [11] Only Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses for stubs None LIMA (our strawman solution)…”
Section: Address Assignmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By separating identifiers from the underlying addresses needed to locate and route to a network object, identifier-based networking [1]- [4] supports simplified session management, multi-homing and device/user mobility. The separation between these two attributes makes it possible to avoid implicit or explicit binding of sources and destinations to the network's actual topology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%