Subject: RE: "unique enough" [RE: globally unique site local addresses]

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:16:00 -0800

Ronald,

>> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> - We need to provide PI addressing in IPv6, or we will
>>   see wide deployment of IPv6 NAT in enterprises
>>   and homes.  No one seems to be disagreeing with this.

> Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> I don't know yet if I agree or not :-) I agree that it
> is a good idea to explore the topic of PI addressing.
> But if you look at the requirements, it might be better
> to take a more fundamental approach and look into the
> separatiion of locator and identifier.

Right. People don't care much about PI addresses if they have PI
identifiers instead.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:11:51 -0500

> Right. People don't care much about PI addresses if they have PI

a true separation of locator and identifier is a more fundamental
change to the Internet architecture than moving from IPv4 to IPv6.

as soon as you separate locator and identifier,  you have the burden of 
providing a mapping service between the two, which is efficient, 
reliable, secure, and precise enough to be used for all applications.  
DNS (which is typically proposed as the solution) doesn't even come close.

OTOH, mobileIP is a fairly close approximation to separating locator
and identifier if you get past the notion that "home agent" is specific 
to a single host (as opposed to a set of hosts with a common prefix), 
and that "home" has anything to do with the normal physical location of 
a host.  being able to get rid of the home agent when the host has a 
home and is at home is a useful optimization that works in some cases, 
but not in all or most cases.

Keith

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:01:20 -0800

Keith,

I think your points on both topics are well taken.

I also have the notion that the current approach of combining the locator 
and identifier in IPv4 and IPv6 has a lot of value that we tend to take for 
granted.  It provides a degree of authentication that requires lots of 
cryptographic technology to replicate if they are separated.  Instead of a 
bug, I think it is a feature :-)

Bob

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:58:24 -0500

> bug, I think it is a feature :-)

I have argued for years that this should be viewed as an engineering
compromise rather than a design flaw.  These days the prevailing view 
seems to be that it is a flaw, but the people who espouse that view 
haven't had to be the burden of actually making it work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------