RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:

> Let's try this one more time.

Do you think one more time is all it will take...?

> 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.

I wouldn't call an address a name, but who cares. The real problem is
that you tie addresses to the topology. Why? Obviously there is some
hierarchy so the two can't be completely seperated, but when looking at
the AS level there is absolutely no relationship between an AS, the
addresses it uses and its place in the network 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.

Ok, now I have to say I don't quite follow your permutations, but if
this is such a paradox, how come it has worked for years for E.164
addresses?

Iljitsch