Pekka,
> Pekka Nikander wrote: > So, the question is about either using identifiers that > sometimes are also locators vs. using identifiers that > never are locators. If we could use identifiers that > are always also locators, we would not need this discussion > at all; the current IP addresses should do well. Indeed, this the existing situation; the issue being size and even more important stability of the GRT. > Now, if we use identifiers that are never locators, the > situation seems to be semantically simple to me. An > identifier identifies a (potential) end-point of > communication. However, it alone is not enough for > communication. You also need to get the locator (the > address), in some way or another. Crystal. > On the other hand, if we use identifiers that are sometimes > also locators, I'm afraid of semantic confusion. How do you > know if a given identifier can be used as a locator or not? [note that I am being the devil's advocate here. I will cc: you on a related thread on the MHAP list soon, as I will likely adopt the same line as you but for different reasons]. Please explain me why does knowing matter if the locator and the identifier have the same semantics? I mean, host A wants to talk to host B; host A gets host B's {address|identifier} from DNS. Host A sends the packet to the router with B's {address|identifier} as the destination. Why should host A care at all if the {address|identifier} is a PA locator (because B is singlehomed) or a PI identifier? I can understand the reasoning when the id/loc mapping mechanism resides in the source host, but not when it resides within the routing system. There is a huge advantage in terms of bootstrapping the protocol: imagine you can make a non-HIP host talk to a HIP host and still benefit from the HIP functionality or some of it. > If you encode it somehow to the bits, then you are actually > going into the clean separation anyway. Indeed; note that I insisted that we keep the "u" bit for the time being precisely for this reason even though we don't know what to do with it as of now. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------