Jeroen Massar wrote: > ... As far as it stands I think that HIP > is going the best way there is. LIN6 is flawed as it won't > scale and can't be deployed easily. Next to those I got my > own odd idea and I will probably work it out and implement it > as a proof of concept. Though timing on when and how may be > completely unknown.
What I was trying to point out is that HIP/etc. is only part of the solution. What an identity protocol needs is a point in the stack which is being identified. We can try to stuff it into each of the transport protocols, but we will have to do that over for each, and there would need to be complex api options if apps wanted to avoid the identity / topology mapping. It will be much simpler to leave the existing api path for the apps that want that service, and provide a layer above transport to manage the mappings. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
