RE: Persistent or opportunistic IDs

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> An interesting middle ground is provided by WIMP, because if i understand
> correctly, they use a stable identifier of the target host (the hash of the
> FQDN) but they use an ephemeral identifier for the initiating host. In this
> case the endpoint has multiple ephemeral identifiers and a well known stable
> identifier for incoming communications.

It is probably possible to combine this with other ideas such a NOID
(i.e. the server having a NOID-type identifier);
a question is whether we want clients in multihomed sites
where the client either doesn't have a DNS entry or it can't control
its DNS entry, to benefit from the multihoming of the client's site.

Overall there seem to be some "cost" associated with both having
a non-emphemeral identifier and security. In the case of NOID
this "cost" is the need to control your DNS entries.

   Erik