Re: question about draft-irtf-nsrg-report-09.txt

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

In answer to your questions, various people felt that IPv6 was enough, 
and that the IP address could be used as the end point identifier.  Even 
in the case of mobility it was felt that MIPv6 would serve the purpose 
of a stable identifier.  As is pointed out in the draft, the flaw in 
this idea is that even the MIPv6 MN address is tied to the topology.

Eliot

Ronald van der Pol wrote:

> <quote>
> 4. Conclusions or Questions
> 
>    The NSRG was not able to come to unanimity as to whether an
>    architectural change is needed.
> </quote>
> 
> There has been a lot of discussion about the separation of identifiers
> and locators (in various forms) on the multi6, ipv6 and ietf lists.
> A lot of people seem to think this is in some form needed.
> 
> I would like to know the arguments against such a change. I don't
> think the document has much text about this. It lists a lot of
> questions. But most are more "how" than "why" questions. Are there
> many people fundamentally against a change and if so, why?
> 
> 	rvdp
> 
> 
>