[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Re: Does every host need a FQDN name in the future?//re:[RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt
On 8 aug 2008, at 14:40, Steven Blake wrote:
Maybe we should simply deprecate identifiers. After all, I know who I
am and you know who you are, and the packets get there through the
locators. And if identity is really necessary, higher layers can
manage it (TLS etc).
If I understand what you have in mind, this solution would look like
(i.e., host has multiple addresses, each with different IIDs).
The interface identifiers are derived from a hash that is the same for
all addresses with HBA so even though they may be different, they do
have a verifiable relationship. (It would have been easier if they
were all the same for the purposes of rewriting the top 64 bits of the
Please correct me if I am wrong, but shim6 does not support either
(2) transparent (to transport layer) stateless network locator
Not sure what you mean by that. If the question is "will shim6 work
through NAT" then the answer is "no".
I can imagine how shim6 could be made to work for mobility, but I
imagine how it can be made to work with network locator translation,
without turning it into an 8+8 scheme.
shim6 is what you get when you start with 8+8 and add the things that
are missing that are needed to make it useful and deployable. You
could consider shim6 to be a form of "16+16".
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg