Keith Moore writes:
| if you try to build a global network out of limited-scope addresses
| you eventually end up reinventing IP at a higher layer.
Correct, that's (some of) the point of CATNIP (RFC 1707): you construct
a network layer out of a virtual superset of the component internets'
address spaces. Simple translations can avoid burning huge numbers
of bits in the "CATNIP" (the super-internet address space) as well
as providing a host-to-network interface, a network-to-super-network
interface, and so forth. 1707 itself is simply an example of one
of many possible CATNIPs that can coexist simultaneously in different
parts of a global Internet.
The important thing for the flexibility to handle multiple simultaneous
disjoint network layer protocols is a session layerish "who"
namespace disjoint from the various routing namespaces of various
scopes, yet which in any scope can be used to look up a locally-relevant
hni/nsni/nni "label", yet is used end-to-end for demuxing and other
purposes that require the mutual identification of endpoints.
IPv6 makes a perfectly reasonable host-to-network interface,
as many people have indicated based on experiences posted to this
list. It would make a better one if it separated "who" from "where".
If it does so sensibly, it could even make a half-decent in-network
protocol, although more importantly, it would readily coexist
with better-tuned network layers within a super-Internet.
Sean.
