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

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-06-24 07:19, Scott Brim wrote:
...

> 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.

Well, that's exactly why Mobile IP uses the home address as a session
ID and the c/o address as a locator. Fundamentally the LISP class
of RRG proposals does the same thing (oh, and so does shim6).

> 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.

Bingo. This is where NAT goes wrong - it presents different tokens
at the two ends.

   Brian

--
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