RE: PReserving ids when changing providers (was:RE: to be draft-ohta-multi6-8plus8-00.txt)

["Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <saq66@umkc.edu>]

> Probably locators will be hardcoded in less places than today, so they will
> be simpler to renumber and IDs will be hardcoded in some of the places that
> ip are used today and perhaps in many others, since they will be used for
> recognizing endpoints in apps and filters, acls and so on
  
If so,it's good. But, for example, SIP hardcodes locators instead of DNS 
names. As per discussions in ietf-aulli, apps folks attributes it to lack 
of access to naming service and reduced delay (in terms of lookup latency.)
So, in future, we can expect more such locator hardcoding at ULP.
 
> So renumbering locators maybe simpler than renumbering IPs today, but
> renumbering IDs may be quite complex since it may require lots of manual
> configuration
 
it looks simple as i read baker-ipv6-renumbering. But, yaa...reading is 
different than practical deployment ;-) 
 
> IMHO, stable ids are good
 
Other than the renumbering reason, stable ID helps in solving the 
address ownership problem. HIP like stable IDs can be used to avoid
address hijacks and origin misconfigurations; as it provides self
verifying capability (i.e. we don't need to depend on costly PKI or
CA to authorize the origin prefix.) The assumption being ID and locator 
mapping is secure.