{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.006934812760055479, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.504504504504505, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Overview and Comparison Criteria for the Host Identity Protocol and Related Technologies

The traditional IP address suffers from semantic overloading by representing both the topological location and also the identifier for a network interface. This is a legacy from much more restricted networking environment than what we face with the modern Internet nowadays. The shortcomings of the original IP architecture have been realized among researchers along with the development of various mobility and multihoming technologies. The purpose of this document is to present criteria for evaluating and comparing such proposals. We focus on the Host Identity Protocol and compare it with other prominent related technologies.