RE: network controls are necessary

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

|   The reason for inventing a new namespace and calling them 
|   "identifiers", and
|   referring to what we used to call "addresses" as "locators" 
|   is to make plain
|   that we have different namespaces to say i) *who* something 
|   is, and ii)
|   *where* it is - and "locators" *only* do the latter. This 
|   is unlike IPvN at
|   the moment, where effectively there is only one kind of 
|   name, which does both
|   - which has been shown to have significant disadvantages.


BTW, practical experience bears this out.  For hosts with
multiple interfaces, sooner or later, you find that you need
a unique IPv4 address to use regardless of what connectivity
is available.  You end up putting an IP address on a loopback
interface to provide the "identifier".

If you come at it the other way and start with a CLNP host
that has an identifier but no interface addresses, you quickly
find that people ALSO want to be able to reference a system
based on it's particular location.

IPv4 did a fine thing in colocating the identifier and 
locator in 32 bits.  And it made sense when the IMP port
number was part of the address.  But those days are well
past us now, the net is much more richly connected and 
being multihomed no longer means that you had two IMPs.

If we are to move the Internet architecture forward, then we
need to apply what we've learned over the past 30 odd years
and deploy a new routing and addressing architecture that 
fixes the semantic overload that was once a practical necessity
and give ourselves the additional flexibility that results.

Articulating the same position for 10 years now, I remain yours
in routing,
Tony