IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 12 August 2008 21:47 UTC

Envelope-to: rrg-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:47:59 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4T9ZAJ2SHjMjmG88JXZumH/bDFi9hlDJ6A9W8QuCW9U=; b=s3bNvXqPggKqcanX9XZ+nwRCm3tVtytyMTjCdFfeCP7PfDGVrBvvvse5eKuZOA2RuP knalimdUqShmRxz6oNVNgIouq7xG1tm7F67U4kne3A98rEEdj4+4xMuFmKxxO7xWnY9y FpnLxJAk+H0368B9ni5rEYAUr6/ag/oX/Tu6k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=r/AxRqI/ETsYxTM8Jg8ycTCFQm7XDviuVpExi3p2TXAnpscEFTEpa1wLeUGU1XZ1ha 53+h2rxm3p+40c0rHZC8O2strpHOzKSxeDkHD0WxEIenIoq81exwLkKtIGvc9JW7Y8Gq J66Ju3U+2pjf09swPDV/rzu2X/iJscmYezaXY=
Message-ID: <48A204DB.2090305@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:47:07 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>
CC: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, rrg Group <rrg@psg.com>
Subject: Re: [RRG] Re: Does every host need a FQDN name in the future?//re:[RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2008-08-13 05:01, Scott Brim wrote:
> On 8/11/08 5:19 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum allegedly wrote:
>> On 11 aug 2008, at 21:58, Scott Brim wrote:
>>
>>> You can't deprecate identifiers in general.  We need identifiers for
>>> mobility and for multipath transport.
>>
>> Two things that don't exist in the real world today...
>>
>> So no need for those to hold us back.
>>
>> And don't MIPv6, SCTP and TCP-over-shim6 all use regular IP addresses
>> that come with locator functionality as their ID?
> 
> You want something that is stable despite changes in topological
> location.  As Brian says, MIP uses the home address as an identifier --
> an anchor point for authentication.  I don't know mobile SCTP or shim6
> very well (help?) but they seem to use a similar stable anchor point. It
> seems that none of these use a pure network layer identifier.

I can't quite parse "mobile SCTP or shim6". I can say nothing about
mobile SCTP, but if you mean "mobile (SCTP or shim6)", then there's
no such thing as mobile shim6 - the assumption is that shim6 applies
to a site, and a shim6-based transport session is anchored by an
arbitrary choice of locator-address for the host concerned, within one
of the site's prefixes. So this explicitly builds on the wave/particle
duality of IP addresses.

(Shim6/Mobile IPv6 interaction is officially for further study,
see expired draft draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip.)

    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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email