"J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > People frequently propose "endpoint identifiers" and "routing > > identifiers" be separated but no one has ever come up with a worked > > proposal that was less flawed than the current mechanism. > > I always find it incredibly funny when IPv6 proponents roll out this tired, > worthless canard - because the IPv6 protocol suite contains a very nicely > worked out mechanism which does *exactly* this! > > It's called Mobile IPv6, and the "care-of address" in the basic IPv6 header > is exactly the "routing identifier", whilst the home address in the IPv6 > routing header is the "endpoint identifier".
That doesn't actually fix the problem, Noel. If you don't have an underlying functioning network with scalable routing even if all systems were running on the mobile protocols it still wouldn't work. People want to dual home their networks for redundancy and reliability. This leads to an explosion in the size of the routing tables. We unfortunately don't know a way to fix that. Even if you renumbered the whole net ever 10 seconds through some miracle, you'd still need routes to all those folks to be propagated through the default free zone. That means if you have 100,000 networks with multiple ingress paths, you still need that many routes. If you have a million networks with multiple ingress paths, you need that many routes. It doesn't matter if everyone uses the mobile addresses as their "endpoint identifiers". > What's especially amusing is that although I keep pointing this wonderfully > ironic and devastating counter-argument out, It is ironic and devastating TO YOU. It isn't particularly interesting to the rest of us. -- Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NetBSD Development, Support & CDs. http://www.wasabisystems.com/
