[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Re: Does every host need a FQDN name in the future?//re:[RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt
On 7 aug 2008, at 18:10, Tony Li wrote:
|- can't filter on it, so this will be done on locators = no
|renumberability
The local site *can* guarantee that an identifier is unique, so it
can in
fact filter on inbound identifiers. Filtering on remote identifiers
is
trivially insecure (regardless of uniqueness) due to spoofing.
The id/loc overload allows for a return routability check;
cryptographic identifiers allow for a challenge.
|- can't look locators up using the id, so a working locator must
|always accompany id = reduced multihoming and mobility
I'm failing the logical leap here. Could you spell out where this
is a
problem?
If you find yourself in the situation where the currently known
locator(s) are unreachable, you can't ask the other side for locators.
If you also can't look them up, you can't contact the correspondent
through another locator and the session is dead or can't be
established. With mobility this is especially likely as a mobile host
will often not know its new locator before the old one stops working.
In theory a locator->locator lookup would be possible, maybe through
the DNS. In that case, the ID value is superfluous.
Maybe we should simply deprecate identifiers. After all, I know who I
am and you know who you are, and the packets get there through the
locators. And if identity is really necessary, higher layers can
manage it (TLS etc).
--
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