[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] Consensus? End-user networks need their own portable address space



On 6/20/08 11:39 AM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
|> The key point for this group is simply this: the IP address *is* an |> identifier, an index key, and many other things that we'll |never fully |> know. It is possible to change, but only gradually over |time. If it |> doesn't have to, all the better.
|
|Whats your conclusion? That we need to assume the IP address will be |used as an identifier by higher layers for the foreseeable future, and |figure out how to live with it?


My conclusion is that if we want to truly fix the architecture, we need to
have an explicit, distinguishable identifier partitioned from the locator.
Yes, the transition to this is not smooth, but unless we create a new
namespace, we are effectively endorsing the semantic overload that we have
today and will have to live with it in perpetuity.

People have used the address as an identifier precisely because they had no
other choice.  We have the opportunity to give them a better alternative.

Got it. It's clear that we need a node identification mechanism that by some means has to persist at least as long as any particular packet exchange lasts. This could be done by any combination of functions at multiple layers. Given that so much of Internet traffic is going to be with mobile endpoints, I don't see how can continue using the current "address" as an identifier good enough to support session continuity. The only way I can think of is to isolate applications from what's really going on underneath, and present them with a token they can use for identification and allow them to think it's a real address.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg