Re: draft-kurtis-multihoming-longprefix comments

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

    > From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>

    >> I believe that a significant portion of multihomers do it because they
    >> want to obtain operator independence. They usually don't have PI
    >> addresses, but what I'd call "PA sold off as PI" or "PA advertised as
    >> PI".

First, once again, about "provider-independent addresses", AKA "connectivity-
independent addresses".

This is pretty much like asking for a street address that stays the same even
when you move.

Needless to say, try that one in the real world and see how far you get with
it.

In any rational discussion of addressing, the phrase "provider-independent
addresses" ought to receive the same reception as "location-independent
street address" - i.e. something between concern (that the person needs to be
institutionalized) and racous laughter (at the ludicrousness of it).


Look, if you want some sort of identifier for machines, one that stays the
same even when a machine moves somewhere else, the IPv4 architecture simply
does not provide it. Frankly, it wasn't even guessed at as a requirement,
back when the Internet had 18 total nets in it.

IPv6 adopted the IPv4 architecture lock, stock, and barrel, changing only the
length of the address. This is touted as its great strength - in fact, it's
its greatest weakness, and we see an example here.

If you don't like the fact that IPv6 does not have identifiers for machines,
ones that stays the same even when a machine moves, either i) complain to the
IPv6 architect(s), or ii) work with people like Ran who are trying to add one.

*Don't* come ask for "location-indepedent street addresses".


    > Well, what I am looking for is a) Any idea of why people are doing
    > this. We are again back to the problem that we should first understand
    > what we are trying to solve before we start posting solutions.

Oh, I think it's reasonably easy to understand why people want identifiers
for their machines that stay the same even if they change providers. They
want to make it easy (or at least easier) to change providers, and prevent
lock-in.

The only possible solution *in the architecture as it stands* is to use DNS
names, if people need a location-independent host identifier.

Another option, again, is to work with people like Ran who are trying to add
such a namespace.

Too bad IPv6 didn't have one from the start.

	Noel