Re: [RRG] Re: Does every host need a FQDN name in the future?//re:[RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt

[Steven Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com>]

On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 19:32 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> 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).

If I understand what you have in mind, this solution would look like shim6
(i.e., host has multiple addresses, each with different IIDs).

Please correct me if I am wrong, but shim6 does not support either (1) mobility or
(2) transparent (to transport layer) stateless network locator translation, correct?

I can imagine how shim6 could be made to work for mobility, but I can't
imagine how it can be made to work with network locator translation,
without turning it into an 8+8 scheme.


Regards,

// Steve


--
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