[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 2008-08-13 05:01, Scott Brim wrote:
> On 8/11/08 5:19 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum allegedly wrote:
>> On 11 aug 2008, at 21:58, Scott Brim wrote:
>>> You can't deprecate identifiers in general. We need identifiers for
>>> mobility and for multipath transport.
>> Two things that don't exist in the real world today...
>> So no need for those to hold us back.
>> And don't MIPv6, SCTP and TCP-over-shim6 all use regular IP addresses
>> that come with locator functionality as their ID?
> You want something that is stable despite changes in topological
> location. As Brian says, MIP uses the home address as an identifier --
> an anchor point for authentication. I don't know mobile SCTP or shim6
> very well (help?) but they seem to use a similar stable anchor point. It
> seems that none of these use a pure network layer identifier.
I can't quite parse "mobile SCTP or shim6". I can say nothing about
mobile SCTP, but if you mean "mobile (SCTP or shim6)", then there's
no such thing as mobile shim6 - the assumption is that shim6 applies
to a site, and a shim6-based transport session is anchored by an
arbitrary choice of locator-address for the host concerned, within one
of the site's prefixes. So this explicitly builds on the wave/particle
duality of IP addresses.
(Shim6/Mobile IPv6 interaction is officially for further study,
see expired draft draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip.)
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com 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