RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>]

    > From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>

    > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

    >> 4. Work on geographical aggregation

    > To which I submit

Let's try this one more time.

An "address", as used in the IPv4/v6 architectures, is a name that (among
other functions) specifies *where* that entity is in the network: i.e. where
it is attached to the network's connectivity topology. In other words:

"geographical address" ->
"geographical topological-location-name" ->
"connectivity-independent topological-location-name" ->
"topological-location-independent topological-location-name".

The latter is, rather obviously, a paradox. Q.E.D.


While I'm at it, I rather admire the skilful political spin displayed in
naming them "provider-dependent" and "provider-independent" addresses,
thereby completely obscuring the underlying technical issues, and making it
seem like it's purely a policy issue, one in which the large providers are
out to screw the customers. Maybe y'all should introduce terminology of
"RIAA-addresses" and "Microsoft-addresses", as alternatives for
"provider-dependent addresses", for extra PR bang.

If you want technically accurate terminology, as opposed to politically
accurate, call them "connectivity-dependent" and "connectivity-independent".

	Noel