Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

In your letter dated Sun, 8 Nov 2015 22:06:14 +0000 you wrote:
>On 08/11/2015 19:47, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> Call me old fashioned, but what NAT breaks is not what is traditionally
>> called a protocol layering violation.
>
>When you code layer 3 information at what we usually refer to as layer 7,
>this is layering violation.

I disagree. Absent any session, presentation, and security layers, 
transport layer identifiers are the application layer identifiers. There is
nothing else.

It would be different if we actually had stable identifiers that were
in actual use. But we don't. There is hardly any use of LISP.

And of course, LISP was only defined after the first use of NAT and 
long after DNS was defined and became in wide spread use.

>ddns is also a layering violation because it makes an assumption at layer 7
>about what's going on in layer 3.

Again, we have to use transport layer identifiers, because the IP stack
doesn't define anything else.